From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 00:30:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:30:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215569] Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010030.l110Ummg031538@bugzilla.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: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215569 ------- Additional Comments From tom at dbservice.com 2007-01-31 19:30 EST ------- No TEXTRELs anymore in x86 code. Btw, making code x86 PIC-conform is really hard.. in amd64 I just write 'mov rax,[var wrt rip]', in x86 I have to use call/pop, _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, 'wrt ..gotoff/..gotpc' and such weird stuff.. I decided to use a different (easier) technique, but it's still much more difficult then a simple 'wrt rip' :( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 00:44:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:44:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010044.l110iftd032004@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-01-31 19:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #0) > Fedora Merge Review: xfsprogs You are already the package owner, as can be seen here: > Initial Owner: jgarzik at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 00:56:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:56:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226704] New: Review Request: iasl - Intel acpi compiler 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=226704 Summary: Review Request: iasl - Intel acpi compiler Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: opensource at till.name QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~tmaas/fedora/iasl.spec SRPM URL: http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~tmaas/fedora/repo/iasl-20061109-1.src.rpm Description: iasl compiles ASL (ACPI Source Language) into AML (ACPI Machine Language), which is suitable for inclusion as a DSDT in system firmware. It also can disassemble AML, for debugging purposes. rpmlint complains about the license but this License-tag was suggested on fedora-extras-list, see: License: Intel Software License Agreement # License approval: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-January/msg00427.html # License URL: http://www.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/license2.htm The package builds fine in mock. The name does not match the tarball because it contains more than just the compiler, that is packaged here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 02:02:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:02:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010202.l112238S002778@bugzilla.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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 bjohnson at symetrix.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjohnson at symetrix.com ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-01-31 21:01 EST ------- %attr(0775,root,apache) %{roundcubedir}/temp temporary files should be created in /tmp, /var/cache/roundcubemail, or possibly another directory depending on usage, but NEVER under /usr %attr(0775,root,apache) %{roundcubedir}/logs same for logs, except /var/log if a single log or /var/log/roundcubemail if multiple logs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 02:20:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:20:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010220.l112KBNP004099@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-01-31 21:20 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail-2.2.2-1.fc6.src.rpm * Sat Jan 31 2007 Bernard Johnson 2.2.2-1 - add logrotate for dbmail.err - sub packages depend on %%{version}-%%{release} - update to 2.2.2 - remove mailbox2dbmail patch - translate tabs to space in dbmail.conf - remove errno race patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 03:17:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:17:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225791] Merge Review: gettext In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010317.l113HQx7007495@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gettext https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225791 Bug 225791 depends on bug 223689, which changed state. Bug 223689 Summary: gettext: non-failsafe install-info use in scriptlets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223689 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 04:14:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226394] Merge Review: scim-m17n In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010414.l114EdjJ010166@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-m17n https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226394 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-01-31 23:14 EST ------- This package was already reviewed for Extras in bug 169924. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 04:17:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:17:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226397] Merge Review: scim-qtimm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010417.l114HAZU010316@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-qtimm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226397 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eng-i18n-bugs at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-01-31 23:17 EST ------- Already reviewed for Extras in bug 166471. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 04:20:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:20:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226393] Merge Review: scim-hangul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010420.l114Ka85010537@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-hangul https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226393 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eng-i18n-bugs at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-01-31 23:20 EST ------- Already reviewed for Extras in bug 166342. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 04:21:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:21:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226392] Merge Review: scim-chewing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010421.l114LSFE010590@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-chewing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226392 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eng-i18n-bugs at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-01-31 23:21 EST ------- Already reviewed for Extras in bug 166473. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 04:25:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:25:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226391] Merge Review: scim-bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010425.l114P9wP010782@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-bridge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226391 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-01-31 23:25 EST ------- Already reviewed for Extras in bug 190243. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 04:38:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:38:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226398] Merge Review: scim-sinhala In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010438.l114cFDK011655@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-sinhala https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226398 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eng-i18n-bugs at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-01-31 23:38 EST ------- Already reviewed for Core in bug 200245. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 04:54:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:54:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] New: Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator 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=226715 Summary: Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cgoorah at yahoo.com.au QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim-9.7.41-1.src.rpm Description: IRSIM is a tool for simulating digital circuits. It is a "switch-level" simulator; that is, it treats transistors as ideal switches. Extracted capacitance and lumped resistance values are used to make the switch a little bit more realistic than the ideal, using the RC time constants to predict the relative timing of events. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 04:58:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:58:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010458.l114wKAu013426@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-01-31 23:58 EST ------- Is there some chance that this package be reviewed before this weekend ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 04:58:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:58:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010458.l114wILK013420@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-01-31 23:58 EST ------- Is there some chance that this package be reviewed before this weekend ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 05:00:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 00:00:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010500.l1150SKl013610@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-01 00:00 EST ------- Sorry for being late. Got a lot of work. Will do review by end of day today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 05:00:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 00:00:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010500.l1150XED013624@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-01 00:00 EST ------- Sorry for being late. Got a lot of work. Will do review by end of day today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 05:44:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 00:44:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010544.l115iEoY016520@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-01 00:44 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM. - rpmlint is NOT silent for RPMS. + source match upstream. f35f93bdb9ae3842879d52e08c6d7ace magic-7.4.33.tgz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is large so added -doc subpackage. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code Not contents. + no static libraries present. + no .pc files present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + icon cache scriptlets used. + Desktop file handled correctly. + file permissions are appropriate. + GUI app APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 05:49:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 00:49:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010549.l115nd3M016680@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-01 00:49 EST ------- Got same mock error. If you have not faced any mock build problem then will review it by building without mock and review it now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 06:40:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:40:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010640.l116ecTj017983@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-01 01:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Got same mock error. > If you have not faced any mock build problem then will review it by building > without mock and review it now. What does full log of mockbuild says if you do mockbuild with "--debug" option? If you attach the result, I may help for it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 06:50:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:50:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010650.l116oevm018229@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-01 01:49 EST ------- True, I prefer to wait for a while and troubleshoot this :) show us your build.log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 07:05:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 02:05:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222964] Review Request: dayplanner - A simple time management program. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010705.l1175RD6018699@bugzilla.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: dayplanner - A simple time management program. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222964 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-01 02:05 EST ------- Well, I must say that your spec file contains not a few issues to fix. Please check: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines >From just I looked at your spec file: A. Description entry * Release - please add %{?_dist} entry unless you have a reason not to do so. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag * Source0 - please specify URL. * BuildRequires - please remove redundant BuildRequires. "perl" is in minimum buildroot and required automatically by "perl-gettext", so this is not needed. * %include_holidayparser - Currently I don't understand this well. If this package can use CPAN Date::HolidayParser module, you should not include perl module in this package and should submit CPAN module package instead. http://ftp.cpan.jp/authors/id/Z/ZE/ZERODOGG/ B. %build stage * Adding %build entry is preferred even if it is completely empty. C. %install stage * "install -mXXX" - Use "install -p -mXXX" to keep timestamps. * Executable scripts/binaries install directory - By the way why do you install "dayplanner dayplanner-daemon dayplanner-notifier" once into %{_datadir}/%{name} instead of directly installing into %{_bindir}? * Desktop file install - "install -m644 ./doc/%{name}.desktop" Please use desktop-file-install ("Desktop files" entry of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines) D. scriptlets ------------------------------------------------------------- %post %{update_menus} %postun %{clean_menus} ------------------------------------------------------------- These macros are not defined. Check: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/RPMMacros E. file entry * macros ------------------------------------------------------------- %{_iconsdir}/dayplanner*.png %{_miconsdir}/dayplanner*.png %{_liconsdir}/dayplanner*.png %{_menudir}/%{name} -------------------------------------------------------------- These macros are also undefined. * subpackage - Would you explain why you want to split dayplanner-commander into different subpackage? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 07:21:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 02:21:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010721.l117LMNE019447@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-01 02:21 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail-2.2.2-2.fc6.src.rpm * Sat Jan 31 2007 Bernard Johnson 2.2.2-2 - add some conditionals for not building sqlite on some product releases - substitude \t for tab in sed so that rpmlint doesn't complain about mixing tabs and spaces -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 07:21:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 02:21:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010721.l117LbJH019465@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-01 02:21 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147073) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147073&action=view) Mock build log of irsim-9.7.41-1.fc7 Only tried to rebuild this: not checked for packaging issue. Mock build log of irsim-9.7.41-1 on FC-devel i386. Fedora specific compilation flags are not passed. Please check how CFLAGS etc are dealt. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 07:28:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 02:28:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010728.l117SI7Q019879@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 07:48:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 02:48:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010748.l117muTg020842@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-01 01:49 EST ------- True, I prefer to wait for a while and troubleshoot this :) show us your build.log ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-01 02:48 EST ------- Argh!! looks like i got broken mock repo updates locally with me. Updating devel repo for my local mock setup. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 07:51:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 02:51:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010751.l117psRc020997@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-01 02:51 EST ------- Got rpmlint on RPM W: kalgebra dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/kalgebra/common ../common The relative symbolic link points nowhere. Which is ignorable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 07:52:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 02:52:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010752.l117qlPQ021047@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-01 02:52 EST ------- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 08:13:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 03:13:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010813.l118D70n021890@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-01 03:12 EST ------- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim-9.7.41-1.src.rpm Then, magic too suffers from that missing CFLAGS. I'll work on it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 08:17:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 03:17:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010817.l118H0pi022168@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-01 03:16 EST ------- typo: SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim-9.7.41-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 08:27:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 03:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010827.l118RIiI022736@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-01 03:27 EST ------- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/magic.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/magic-7.4.33-3.src.rpm Fix for CFLAGS thanks for the review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 08:34:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 03:34:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226725] New: Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool 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=226725 Summary: Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cgoorah at yahoo.com.au QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/netgen.spec SRPM http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/netgen-1.3.7-1.src.rpm Description: Netgen is a tool for comparing netlists, a process known as LVS, which stands for "Layout vs. Schematic". This is an important step in the integrated circuit design flow, ensuring that the geometry that has been laid out matches the expected circuit. The greatest need for LVS is in large analog or mixed-signal circuits that cannot be simulated in reasonable time. Even for small circuits, LVS can be done much faster than simulation, and provides feedback that makes it easier to find an error than does a simulation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 08:46:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 03:46:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010846.l118k6PY023865@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 ------- Additional Comments From jgarzik at redhat.com 2007-02-01 03:46 EST ------- I've been ignoring that package for well over a year, and will continue to ignore it. It was assigned to me by someone else in a long-ago bombing run. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 08:57:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 03:57:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010857.l118vFQu024824@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-01 03:57 EST ------- Cool... I don't think anyone foreseen such a possibility. So, should we use the orphaning procedure or what? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 09:10:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 04:10:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225500] Review Request: cycle - Calendar program for women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010910.l119A4G6026505@bugzilla.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: cycle - Calendar program for women https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225500 ------- Additional Comments From mcepl at redhat.com 2007-02-01 04:10 EST ------- Updated. I have also consulted .spec from the tarball, and although I haven't accepted everything, I made a small changes to my spec accordingly. New URL of SRPM: http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/cycle-0.3.1-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 09:10:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 04:10:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] New: Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena 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=226729 Summary: Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/duel3.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/duel3-0.1-0.1.20060225.fc7.src.rpm Description: The sudden attack from the Martain Rim miners caught the Earth by suprise, there was no way the meager Earth Space Fleet could defend themselves. The miners attacked, and eliminated their enemies, and then returned to the asteroid belt. However, Earth could not accept such an embarrassing defeat. The military developed new space fighters, and trained several squadrons of elite pilots. The task force was then deployed against the miners. These trained pilots utterly defeated the miners in a matter of weeks, and the first space war in human history was finished. The military, however, now had a new problem on their hands. These new elite pilots were becoming restless, and there was no way for them to test their skills. The military dare not disband the force, or let their skills dull, so the Duel Combat League was formed. The newly formed league quickly became the premier entertainment form on the planet, and the military's largest source of income. Take control of a Duel fighter, and test your skills againt your opponents and the arena itself in fast-paced space combat. --- Notice that the music in the game comes from here: http://www.s3m.com/dma/displayuser.php?user_id=1061 As is stated in the readme and does not seem to come with any license of its own, I've contacted the author of the music for further license information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 09:27:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 04:27:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010927.l119ROL9028168@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-01 04:27 EST ------- mock build is fine now. But can't see Desktop file so used this application from console Maybe you like to move Categories from Science to Categories=Qt;KDE;Math;Education; in .desktop file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 09:29:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 04:29:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702010929.l119TmWN028302@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-01 04:29 EST ------- OK as you need review of this package immedietley, Here comes review for this. Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM. - rpmlint is NOT silent for RPMS but is ignorable. + source match upstream. 8fb7edabb6b59c7606decf2f70da8dcd kalgebra-20060501.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is small; so no need of -doc subpackage. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code Not contents. + no static libraries present. + no .pc files present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + icon cache scriptlets used. + Desktop file handled correctly. - Unable to see Desktop icon from Applications Menu -> + file permissions are appropriate. + GUI app -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 10:00:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 05:00:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011000.l11A0h0U030315@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 ------- Additional Comments From jgarzik at redhat.com 2007-02-01 05:00 EST ------- That's as good an idea as any, I suppose. The Extras community is probably far better suited to maintaining {xfs,reiserfs,jfs}utils packages than a Red Hatter anyway, because RH does not support the filesystems in question. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 10:02:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 05:02:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225130] Review Request: smashteroid - Astrosmash Remake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011002.l11A2RVQ030497@bugzilla.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: smashteroid - Astrosmash Remake Alias: smashteroid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225130 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-01 05:02 EST ------- Imported and build, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 10:16:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 05:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225763] Merge Review: fonts-indic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011016.l11AGkWU031562@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fonts-indic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225763 ------- Additional Comments From pnemade at redhat.com 2007-02-01 05:16 EST ------- Before any reviewer will pick this package, I made it as per FE guidelines and updated a new RPM of this package today. So i think i will need now a formal official review here :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 10:17:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 05:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225763] Merge Review: fonts-indic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011017.l11AHPm2031617@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fonts-indic https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225763 ------- Additional Comments From pnemade at redhat.com 2007-02-01 05:17 EST ------- However, I will be happy to see some missing packaging improvement here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 10:44:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 05:44:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011044.l11Aickc001296@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-01 05:44 EST ------- Good - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license is GPL, text in %doc, matches source, includes COPYING from the sources - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, is last available version, sha1sum 72e5e570530a89ea962a17e55723318010e9a8e5 etherape-0.9.7.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86) and FC6 - no missing BR - MINOR: unnecessary BR libglade-devel (brought in by libgnomeui-devel) - handles locales properly - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - docs are small, but part of them are in scrollkeeper format (see below) - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no scriptlets - no static content - no pkgconfig(.pc) files - no libtool archives SHOULD - builds in mock on all tested platforms (FC6, devel, i386, x86_64) - runs OK on FC6/x86_64 MUSTFIX: - takes ownership of /usr/share/omf and /usr/share/pixmaps quire scrollkeeper - the desktop file is installed using --add-category X-Fedora which is no longer required (see PackagingGuidelines#desktop in the wiki) - part of the documentation requires scrollkeeper. I suggest one of the following two approaches -- either add scrollkeeper to Requires: or -- build a separate package for docs and make that package require scrollkeeper And a question: any other reason for not including the HTML pages except for the fact that in the source tarball they are available in both text and HTML format ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 10:45:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 05:45:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011045.l11AjCAJ001368@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 11:00:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:00:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226534] Merge Review: vte In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011100.l11B06Gb003099@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vte https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226534 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-01 06:00 EST ------- * Source url points to wrong directory. Correct is: ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/vte/0.15/vte-0.15.2.tar.bz2 * %dir %{_libdir}/%{name} is included in both packages. * %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/vte.pc lists more "Requires" than found in the vte-devel package. Incomplete pkgconfig dependency chains break all sorts of pkg-config queries. Plus: it links -lfreetype by default (-> Requires: freetype-devel). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 11:25:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:25:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011125.l11BPD6G005664@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-01 06:25 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147096) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147096&action=view) mock build log with -fPIC Still no luck. [giallu at molzilla SPECS]$ nemiver |X|virtual GModule* nemiver::common::DynamicModule::Loader::load_library_from_path(const nemiver::common::UString&):nmv-dynamic-module.cc:284:raised exception: failed to load shared library /usr/lib/nemiver/plugins/dbgperspective/libdbgperspectiveplugin.so: /usr/lib/nemiver/plugins/dbgperspective/libdbgperspectiveplugin.so: cannot restore segment prot after reloc: Permission denied |X|void nemiver::common::Plugin::load_entry_point():nmv-plugin.cc:201:raised exception: failed to load plugin entry point 'dbgperspective for plugin 'dbgperspective' |E|nemiver::common::PluginSafePtr nemiver::common::PluginManager::load_plugin_from_path(const nemiver::common::UString&, std::vector, std::allocator > >&):nmv-plugin.cc:562:Failed to load dependant plugin 'dbgperspective and (in audit.log) type=AVC msg=audit(1170328411.204:2435): avc: denied { execmod } for pid=21468 comm="nemiver" name="libdbgperspectiveplugin.so" dev=dm-0 ino=25724931 scontext=user_u:system_r:unconfined_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:object_r:lib_t:s0 tclass=file type=SYSCALL msg=audit(1170328411.204:2435): arch=40000003 syscall=125 success=no exit=-13 a0=641000 a1=215000 a2=5 a3=bfb3d6e0 items=0 ppid=20331 pid=21468 auid=500 uid=500 gid=500 euid=500 suid=500 fsuid=500 egid=500 sgid=500 fsgid=500 tty=pts4 comm="nemiver" exe="/usr/bin/nemiver" subj=user_u:system_r:unconfined_t:s0 key=(null) type=AVC_PATH msg=audit(1170328411.204:2435): path="/usr/lib/nemiver/plugins/dbgperspective/libdbgperspectiveplugin.so" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 12:05:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 07:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011205.l11C5CHh007499@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-01 07:05 EST ------- Well, I want to check -2 today (in Japan, EST+14h), however rawhide upgraded tk related packages and please wait until upgrading ends successfully. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 12:09:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 07:09:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011209.l11C9rNv007695@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-01 07:09 EST ------- The music issue has been cleared, I got the following answer from the author of the music: "Hi! the first thing I have to say is that I'm spanish, so I hope that my english will be fine. thanks for your e-mail. These songs can be used freely. The only thing I want is to be credited on the game as "Antonio Salgado" that is my real name. When I'll arrive at home I'll try the game, It looks good. thanks again. see you!!" So only proper crediting is needed, I'll fix this with the next release, together with any other issues which come up during review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 12:10:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 07:10:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011210.l11CAet5007744@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-01 07:10 EST ------- Umm.. rawhide report says that currently several packages have broken dependency against tk as tk is upgraded to 8.5, so first I have to rebuild all broken packages locally against new tk first... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 12:20:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 07:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011220.l11CKNbL008176@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 Bug 226496 depends on bug 203639, which changed state. Bug 203639 Summary: tn5250 .so and autoconf macro should be in -devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203639 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 12:52:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 07:52:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217735] Review Request: tcldict - Tcl dictionary extensiuon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011252.l11Cq4wx009859@bugzilla.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: tcldict - Tcl dictionary extensiuon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217735 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 13:04:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 08:04:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011304.l11D462L010721@bugzilla.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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-01 08:04 EST ------- Upstream's response: -------------- 2007/1/31, Jon Ciesla : > The parts from PEAR, namely DB, Auth, Net and Mail. You need to let the > end user install them on their own, since they're readily available and > GPL-incompatible. This won't be an issue for Fedora, as they're all > available as Extras packages which Roundcube can require as dependencies. OK, I'll take care of that. > > Also, where are the .map files in program/lib/encoding from? How are they > licensed? There's a contact address in them from microsoft, which in the > absence of concrete licensing information in the utf8.class.php file makes > it likely that it can't be redistributed with GPL code. The map files are from ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ and the utf8.class contains the following line: "License: Choose the more appropriated for You - I don't care." > > Taking care of the PEAR parts shouldn't be a problem, but the utf stuff > probably should go and be replaced with something using this: > > http://us2.php.net/manual-lookup.php?pattern=utf&lang=en utf8_encode only works from latin to utf8 but does not support other charsets. RoundCube tries to use mbstring, iconv and utf8_encode/decode methods and only if none of them is available or if those do not support the requested charset the utf8.class with the mapping files will be used. See program/include/main.inc : rcube_charset_convert() for details about this. If the PHP installation of the Fedora package includes mbstring you could actually deliver RoundCube without these utf8 files. > > I hope this is helpful. Thanks! Thomas --------------- My reply: --------------- > OK, I'll take care of that. Great, let me know when the new release is out. > > The map files are from ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ > and the utf8.class contains the following line: > "License: Choose the more appropriated for You - I don't care." IANAL, but it sounds fine, if a bit unwise on the copyright holder's part. > > utf8_encode only works from latin to utf8 but does not support other > charsets. RoundCube tries to use mbstring, iconv and > utf8_encode/decode methods and only if none of them is available or if > those do not support the requested charset the utf8.class with the > mapping files will be used. > See program/include/main.inc : rcube_charset_convert() for details about > this. > > If the PHP installation of the Fedora package includes mbstring you > could actually deliver RoundCube without these utf8 files. I'll require php-mbstring in the Fedora package, so if you ever deprecate this and just list mbstring as a requirement (which I recommend, as it's fairly common), it won't impact Fedora. Eagerly awaiting the new release, Jon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 14:15:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:15:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011415.l11EFMmA016384@bugzilla.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: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 Bug 199029 depends on bug 205575, which changed state. Bug 205575 Summary: Upgrade to gstreamer 0.10.10 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205575 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 14:24:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:24:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011424.l11EOKeK017387@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-01 09:24 EST ------- > - part of the documentation requires scrollkeeper. Only at build/install time. (and there is the issue of /usr/share/omf ownership). The scrollkeeper scriptlets are missing, however, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-a4ea5e1946bc113d19d24b4f5bfb543c579e5fc8 In my opinion having scrollkeeper as a dependency for a gnome based package is not an issue at all. It is better, in my opinion, to have the documentation available in gnome-help in the main package. In fact, in general the documentation is accessible from the application window. It is not the case for etherape, but it could become the case. What is debatable is whether or not to have requires for yelp. I think it is not strictly necessary, but opinions may differ. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 14:27:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:27:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011427.l11ERsi9017671@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-01 09:27 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147103) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147103&action=view) irsim -2.1 spec file I created Well: * Source tarball includes unneeded symlink. Your original spec file does not remove this symlink on %clean stage. * Passing cflags can be done in more easy way. And the manual modification against files automatically created by configure should be avoided when possible. * Timestamps are not kept My spec file should hopefully fix them. Please check it. I will check if another issues are left to be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 15:37:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:37:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225784] Merge Review: gdbm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011537.l11Fbskg023214@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gdbm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225784 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|jbj at redhat.com | ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-01 10:37 EST ------- For the moment, yeah. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 15:49:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:49:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225500] Review Request: cycle - Calendar program for women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011549.l11Fn5ok024307@bugzilla.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: cycle - Calendar program for women https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225500 mr.ecik at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-01 10:49 EST ------- Looks fine now. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 15:51:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:51:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225784] Merge Review: gdbm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011551.l11FpfCl024453@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gdbm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225784 ------- Additional Comments From rvokal at redhat.com 2007-02-01 10:51 EST ------- I'm a temporary owner before I find someone who will take care of it. Volunteers welcomed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 16:07:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:07:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011607.l11G7hTt025407@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-01 11:07 EST ------- Well, for -2.1: * License: I doubt that this is licensed under GPL. All texts which include explicit license terms refer to the same sentences, however, I just don't know how this license is called... Please check: ./analyzer/anXhelper.c for example. (Note: license for files created by autotools should be ignored). * Some documentation I wonder if the 3 documentation ----------------------------------------- /usr/lib/irsim/doc/irsim-analyzer.doc /usr/lib/irsim/doc/irsim.doc /usr/lib/irsim/doc/netchange.doc ----------------------------------------- are really needed because: * they are the same as man pages installed. * it seems that they are not used at runtime. ? Would you give me some examples so that I can check if this program works well? ? I just wonder if the following compilation flag is proper: --------------------------------- DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"magic-hackers at csl.cornell.edu\" --------------------------------- Should this be your mail address? ? By the way, what are the files under other/ directory? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 16:18:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:18:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011618.l11GI6VL026068@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-01 11:18 EST ------- I gave a quick one minute perusal of the spec file, one thing I noticed is you have %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixed which is a blocker for the extras guidelines (guess it is confusing or something). The buildroot also needs to be fixed, fesco decided to use the one and only true buildroot which is: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Ive never seen BuildArchitecture tag before, I've always just seen "BuildArch", guess thats okay though, just interesting, im not sure what the official tag is or how rpm works, but I guess this works. The standard license tag should just be "PHP License" or "PHP License 3.0", to match rpmlint list of valid licenses. Should the %configs have a (noreplace) flag?? And here is the really really important one: pear 1.5.0 is out, and it fixes a bug I need to do a proper upgrade path for php-pear-PHPUnit. This is by no means an official review, just a few quick comments after looking at the spec for one minute. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 16:20:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:20:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011620.l11GKvIL026249@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-01 11:20 EST ------- Well, * Same as irsim (bug 226715), %clean stage does not remove all files expanded from the original source correctly. * CFLAGS can be dealt with the same way as I pointed out in irsim. * I cannot understand why documentations should be included under %{_libdir}. Are these files used at runtime by binaries/scripts included in magic related rpm? - If so, I think that the documentation should not be split out. - If not, I think that all documentaion files should be moved under %{_datadir}/doc. * By the way, why does this package have to update gtk icon cache? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 16:24:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:24:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226340] Merge Review: pyspi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011624.l11GOY23026534@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pyspi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226340 ------- Additional Comments From dmalcolm at redhat.com 2007-02-01 11:24 EST ------- pyspi was originally in Extras, original review was bug 182305 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 16:31:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:31:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011631.l11GVYI2027039@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(niles at rickniles.co | |m) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-01 11:31 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 16:33:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:33:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226515] Merge Review: unixODBC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011633.l11GXTZR027205@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unixODBC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226515 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr BugsThisDependsOn| |203641 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-01 11:33 EST ------- I think it is time to reassess where dlopened objects should be. In my opinion the best thing is to have them in a %_libdir subdir and to change the default config file accordingly. The issue of retro compatibility is important too, so I think that for a given number of fedora releases there could be symlinks pointing from the old location to the new location, and a README.fedora file could be added stating that in a given number of versions the dlopened objects will be removed from %_libdir. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 16:40:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 11:40:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011640.l11Getva028014@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-01 11:40 EST ------- Standard review comment for Hans' packages: icon-theme?? ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 17:14:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:14:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011714.l11HEZ4O030071@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From matt at rudeserver.com 2007-02-01 12:14 EST ------- Ping... Thank you so much. I will fix and bump today!! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 17:19:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:19:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] New: Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler 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=226795 Summary: Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: trond.danielsen at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/sdcc.spec SRPM URL: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/sdcc-2.6.0-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: SDCC is a C compiler for 8051 class and similar microcontrollers. The package includes the compiler, assemblers and linkers, a device simulator and a core library. The processors supported (to a varying degree) include the 8051, ds390, z80, hc08, and PIC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 17:20:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:20:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011720.l11HKTJT030500@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-01 12:20 EST ------- rpmlint output: [/var/lib/mock/fedora-6-x86_64-core/result] rpmlint sdcc-2.6.0-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm [/var/lib/mock/fedora-6-x86_64-core/result] rpmlint sdcc-devel-2.6.0-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm W: sdcc-devel no-documentation E: sdcc-devel script-without-shebang /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/time.c E: sdcc-devel zero-length /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/pic/libdev/p16c620a.c E: sdcc-devel script-without-shebang /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/gets.c E: sdcc-devel zero-length /usr/share/sdcc/lib/large/dummy.lib E: sdcc-devel zero-length /usr/share/sdcc/lib/small/dummy.rel E: sdcc-devel script-without-shebang /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/ds400/tinibios.c E: sdcc-devel script-without-shebang /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/ds390/rtc390.c E: sdcc-devel zero-length /usr/share/sdcc/lib/small-stack-auto/dummy.lib E: sdcc-devel zero-length /usr/share/sdcc/lib/small-stack-auto/dummy.rel E: sdcc-devel zero-length /usr/share/sdcc/lib/medium/dummy.rel E: sdcc-devel script-without-shebang /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/ds390/tinibios.c E: sdcc-devel zero-length /usr/share/sdcc/lib/large/dummy.rel E: sdcc-devel zero-length /usr/share/sdcc/lib/small/dummy.lib E: sdcc-devel script-without-shebang /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/_itoa.c E: sdcc-devel script-without-shebang /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/ser_ir_cts_rts.c E: sdcc-devel zero-length /usr/share/sdcc/lib/medium/dummy.lib E: sdcc-devel script-without-shebang /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/_ltoa.c -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 17:38:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:38:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226800] New: Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs 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=226800 Summary: Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tromey at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tromey/bbdb-srpm/emacs-bbdb.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~tromey/bbdb-srpm/emacs-bbdb-2.35-1.src.rpm Description: The Insidious Big Brother Database (BBDB) is a contact management utility. It is tightly integrated with several mail and news readers, allowing it to create database entries directly from mail and news messages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 18:15:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:15:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225867] Merge Review: gthumb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011815.l11IFMc5002454@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gthumb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225867 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-01 13:15 EST ------- The right way to do it is: -libgthumb_LTLIBRARIES = libgthumb.la +noinst_LTLIBRARIES = libgthumb.la libgthumb_la_LDFLAGS = -avoid-version -no-undefined So you've checked and only one binary uses this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 18:19:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:19:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226809] New: Merge Review: fonts-sinhala 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=226809 Summary: Merge Review: fonts-sinhala Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody at fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com CC: pnemade at redhat.com Fedora Merge Review: fonts-sinhala http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/fonts-sinhala/ Initial Owner: pnemade at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 18:37:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226813] New: Merge Review: zsh 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=226813 Summary: Merge Review: zsh Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody at fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com CC: james.antill at redhat.com Fedora Merge Review: zsh http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/zsh/ Initial Owner: james.antill at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 18:38:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:38:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011838.l11Icr23004405@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From matt at rudeserver.com 2007-02-01 13:38 EST ------- Once again, thank you for your review. I have disabled building the static library. I also removed the corresponding %{_libdir}/*.a from the relevant %files section. I removed the commented out duplicate %configure (thank you for the information regarding rpm expansion of comments) I fixed the typo that was found in the comment section. I addressed the same typo in the the ChangeLog file. As per your advice, I have switched to using the bz2'ed tarball instead of the gzip'ed ones. (thanks for that advice) I have increased the release number from 1 to 2. I apologize in advance if my assumption to bump that number was wrong. I have added comments reflecting the major changes for this release in NEWS, ChangeLog, and the specfile. The URLs for the updated files are: Spec URL: http://www.rudeserver.com/config/download/rudeconfig.spec SRPM URL: http://www.rudeserver.com/config/download/rudeconfig-5.0.4-2.src.rpm I am in the process of making version 5.0.4 "visibly" available on the website. Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:07:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:07:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226511] Merge Review: unifdef In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011907.l11J7deK006240@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unifdef https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226511 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dwmw2 at redhat.com CC| |wtogami at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-01 14:07 EST ------- APPROVED due to previous reviews in Bug #190362 and Bug #189937 (ASSIGNED to owner, deal with this only after the new buildsys is up) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:08:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:08:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011908.l11J8Q1F006333@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-01 14:08 EST ------- > %{_includedir}/rude/config.h The directory itself is not included! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:13:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:13:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226429] Merge Review: sqlite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011913.l11JDMZ8006823@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sqlite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226429 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-01 14:13 EST ------- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-commits/2005-April/msg01144.html Well, this was a pre-Bugzilla review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:15:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:15:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226399] Merge Review: scim-tables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011915.l11JFcLl007073@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-tables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226399 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-01 14:15 EST ------- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-commits/2005-June/msg00626.html Another pre-Bugzilla review. Probably needs a recheck. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:21:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:21:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226397] Merge Review: scim-qtimm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011921.l11JL0To007732@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-qtimm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226397 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |petersen at redhat.com CC| |wtogami at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-01 14:20 EST ------- Looked at the current SRPM again, I APPROVE of this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:24:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:24:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226394] Merge Review: scim-m17n In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011924.l11JOx4l008225@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-m17n https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226394 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |majain at redhat.com CC| |wtogami at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-01 14:24 EST ------- I took another quick look. It looks good, although I suppose we might as well remove the "with_libstdc_preview" stuff now that we no longer need it? (This applies to all scim* packages.) APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:25:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:25:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226397] Merge Review: scim-qtimm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011925.l11JPuMI008373@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-qtimm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226397 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:39:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:39:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225613] Merge Review: beecrypt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011939.l11Jdgeg009981@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: beecrypt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225613 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-01 14:39 EST ------- http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00339.html ./configure strips -g and adds -fomit-frame-pointer -> probably useless debuginfo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:48:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:48:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225867] Merge Review: gthumb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011948.l11JmHoT010790@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gthumb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225867 ------- Additional Comments From yaneti at declera.com 2007-02-01 14:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > The right way to do it is: > > -libgthumb_LTLIBRARIES = libgthumb.la > +noinst_LTLIBRARIES = libgthumb.la > libgthumb_la_LDFLAGS = -avoid-version -no-undefined gives me trouble when linking the libjpegtran.so module > So you've checked and only one binary uses this? at least none that I can see in core or extras The only users seem to be the gthumb DSO modules in %(_libdir}/gthumb/modules Which perhaps points that its advisable to still build the shared lib but leave it in some private ghtumb link path. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:48:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:48:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011948.l11JmHu5010788@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From matt at rudeserver.com 2007-02-01 14:48 EST ------- I am sorry, but I do not understand the problem. Looking at the following extract of the current spec file: --------- current extract of spec file----- %files devel %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc %{_includedir}/rude/config.h %{_libdir}/*.so %{_mandir}/man3/* -------------------------------------------- Do you mean that I have ommitted the directory, and should add something like: %{_includedir}/rude Or are you saying that I should omit the directory "rude" and just have: %{_includedir}/config.h Or is the blank line that I (accidently) introduced below %doc and before %{_includedir}/config.h a problem (maybe messed up a diff result)? Or something else that is way over my head - admittedly, my brain is a bit slodgy today.. Thank you:) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:49:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:49:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225658] Merge Review: cpuspeed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011949.l11JnaVf010953@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpuspeed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225658 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-01 14:49 EST ------- http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00339.html "make CFLAGS=..." is a no-op; the Makefile uses COPTS, thus the build ends up doing just "gcc -Wall -fno-exceptions -c -O2 cpuspeed.cc". Just changing CFLAGS to COPTS makes the build fail here on FC6 i386, though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:57:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:57:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226393] Merge Review: scim-hangul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011957.l11JvLcu011631@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-hangul https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226393 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tagoh at redhat.com CC| |wtogami at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-01 14:57 EST ------- src.rpm rpmlint W: scim-hangul mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 15) i386.rpm rpmlint E: scim-hangul obsolete-not-provided iiimf-le-hangul Not sure about the implications of this. I suppose this is OK, because obsolete gets rid of the old version of iiimf-le-hangul, but scim-hangul does not provide iiimf-le-hangul, which could be packaged again in newer version later if somebody cared enough to do so. Consider removing the with_libstdc_preview stuff if it is no longer needed. Otherwise, APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 19:57:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:57:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226393] Merge Review: scim-hangul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702011957.l11JvXE8011695@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-hangul https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226393 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:00:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:00:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222326] Review Request: gxine - GTK frontend for the xine multimedia library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012000.l11K027C011964@bugzilla.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: gxine - GTK frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222326 martin.sourada at seznam.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #146444|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From martin.sourada at seznam.cz 2007-02-01 15:00 EST ------- (From update of attachment 146444) Fixed in new upstream release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:01:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:01:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222326] Review Request: gxine - GTK frontend for the xine multimedia library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012001.l11K1uVE012096@bugzilla.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: gxine - GTK frontend for the xine multimedia library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222326 ------- Additional Comments From martin.sourada at seznam.cz 2007-02-01 15:01 EST ------- New upstream release. New SPEC: http://feannatar.hostuju.cz/fedora/files/FC6/SPECS/gxine.spec New SRPM: http://feannatar.hostuju.cz/fedora/files/FC6/SRPMS/gxine-0.5.11-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:02:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:02:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012002.l11K29LG012132@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtkhtml3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-01 15:02 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147135) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147135&action=view) Use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00339.html A bug in the strict_build_settings block causes $RPM_OPT_FLAGS not being used (-> no optimization, no compiler security features, useless debuginfo). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:06:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:06:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226392] Merge Review: scim-chewing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012006.l11K6WIv012368@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-chewing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226392 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |cchance at redhat.com CC| |wtogami at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-01 15:06 EST ------- .src.rpm rpmlint W: scim-chewing mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 93, tab: line 3) i386 rpmlint E: scim-chewing obsolete-not-provided iiimf-le-xcin (Justified) APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:09:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:09:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012009.l11K97l5012589@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-01 15:08 EST ------- The former. And that's either: | %files devel | %defattr(-,root,root,-) | %{_includedir}/rude/ | %{_libdir}/*.so | %{_mandir}/man3/* Or: | %files devel | %defattr(-,root,root,-) | %dir %{_includedir}/rude | %{_includedir}/rude/config.h | %{_libdir}/*.so | %{_mandir}/man3/* When you list the binary rpm, you want to see a "drwxr-xr-x" entry for "/usr/include/rude". The difference between | %dir %{_includedir}/rude | %{_includedir}/rude/config.h and | %{_includedir}/rude/ is that the latter includes the directory "rude" and the entire tree below it. On the contrary, with %dir you can include specific directories, but you need to specify any files in addition to that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:11:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:11:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225658] Merge Review: cpuspeed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012011.l11KBQi9012741@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpuspeed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225658 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jwilson at redhat.com CC| |wtogami at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-01 15:11 EST ------- Needs work then, assigning to owner before the review can go further. After you fix this issue, please set fedora-review back to BLANK and reassign back to the reviewer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:13:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:13:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012013.l11KD8cS012892@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtkhtml3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mbarnes at redhat.com CC| |wtogami at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-01 15:13 EST ------- Assigning to owner, who must fix this before review proceeds. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:15:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:15:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225997] Merge Review: libdbi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012015.l11KF7Qx013058@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libdbi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225997 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-01 15:15 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147136) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147136&action=view) Use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00339.html Build doesn't use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS, but rather hardcoded CFLAGS containing a -O20 oddball, quick and dirty fix attached. Is the static library needed for something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:27:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:27:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225867] Merge Review: gthumb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012027.l11KRYLC013743@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gthumb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225867 ------- Additional Comments From yaneti at declera.com 2007-02-01 15:27 EST ------- -libgthumbdir = $(libdir) +libgthumbdir = $(libdir)/gthumb and autoreconf seems to achieve said goal One more thing -%configure %{gphoto_flags} +%configure %{?gphoto_flags} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:28:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:28:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225668] Merge Review: cscope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012028.l11KSZVj013831@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cscope https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225668 nhorman at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version|15.5 |15.5-15.2.fc7 ------- Additional Comments From nhorman at redhat.com 2007-02-01 15:28 EST ------- - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Check, rpmlint passes cscope-15.5-15.2.%{dist} with no output - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Check - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec Check - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Check - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Check. BSD license - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Check - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. Check - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. Check - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW] http://www.ioccc.org/). Check - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. Check - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Check - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc N.A. Package builds on all supported arches - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Check. - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A. cscope does not support locales. - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. N/A. No shared libraries included. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 20:45:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:45:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225668] Merge Review: cscope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012045.l11KjKwQ014886@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cscope https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225668 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE | ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-01 15:45 EST ------- You can not review your own package someone else must do it. Just based on your review here i see one problem the disttag nees to be %{?dist} not %{dist} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 21:27:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:27:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226891] New: Review Request: dbus-qt - dbus bindings for qt 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=226891 Summary: Review Request: dbus-qt - dbus bindings for qt Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dennis at ausil.us QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.ausil.us/packages/dbus-qt.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ausil.us/packages/dbus-qt-0.70-1.src.rpm Description: dbus bindings for qt note this is a re review for an existing package being un orphaned. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 21:31:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:31:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226892] New: Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet 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=226892 Summary: Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dennis at ausil.us QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.ausil.us/packages/kpowersave.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ausil.us/packages/kpowersave-0.7.1-1.src.rpm Description: power control applet for kde -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 22:35:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 17:35:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226904] New: Review Request: qmpdclient - MPD client 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=226904 Summary: Review Request: qmpdclient - MPD client Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mr.ecik at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/rpm/qmpdclient/qmpdclient.spec SRPM URL: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/rpm/qmpdclient/qmpdclient-1.0.7-1.src.rpm Description: A very advanced MPD client written in Qt4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 22:39:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 17:39:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224271] Review Request: rhts - A system for developing automated tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012239.l11MdmMK024012@bugzilla.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: rhts - A system for developing automated tests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224271 ------- Additional Comments From dmalcolm at redhat.com 2007-02-01 17:39 EST ------- The /mnt issue is not yet resolved. I've updated the spec and SRPM to reflect some upstream changes; a new /usr/libexec/rhts directory has appeared, and many files have moved there from /usr/bin. Latest specfile here: http://people.redhat.com/dmalcolm/rhts-candidates/rhts-2.6.0.svn343-3/rhts.spec Latest SRPM here: http://people.redhat.com/dmalcolm/rhts-candidates/rhts-2.6.0.svn343-3/rhts-2.6.0.svn343-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 22:41:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 17:41:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012241.l11MfSov024147@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-01 17:41 EST ------- Please also grep for "rpath" in the build log. IIRC not having hardcoded rpaths is a MUST item -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 23:43:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 18:43:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012343.l11NhwpX026463@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From matt at rudeserver.com 2007-02-01 18:43 EST ------- Thank you so much for explaining that to me. I have used the %dir %{_includedir}/rude %{_includedir}/rude/config.h The URLs for the updated files are: Spec URL: http://www.rudeserver.com/config/download/rudeconfig.spec SRPM URL: http://www.rudeserver.com/config/download/rudeconfig-5.0.4-3.src.rpm Thanks again! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 1 23:51:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 18:51:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702012351.l11NpC1N026718@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From blt at iastate.edu 2007-02-01 18:51 EST ------- This would be very, very great to have in the extras or even base tree. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 01:31:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:31:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225997] Merge Review: libdbi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020131.l121V8ki030403@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libdbi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225997 ------- Additional Comments From tgl at redhat.com 2007-02-01 20:31 EST ------- Yeah, the lack of RPM_OPT_FLAGS is a known problem both here and in libdbi-drivers; will fix when I get some time for this package. Don't see any strong reason to keep the static library, no. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 01:37:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:37:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020137.l121bWfA030623@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-01 20:37 EST ------- Packaging-wise *-3.src.rpm seems fine. There remains one (upstream) issue: /usr/include/rude/config.h uses INCLUDED_CONFIG_H as header guard. This isn't necessarily a clever choice, because INCLUDED_CONFIG_H is a pretty generic name which likely to conflict with other package's defines. I'd recommend to use _RUDE_CONFIG_H or similar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 01:44:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:44:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225866] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-good In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020144.l121iXYj030855@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-good https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225866 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-01 20:44 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147173) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147173&action=view) Patch to enable plugins that used dependencies from Extras -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 01:47:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:47:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225866] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-good In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020147.l121l0bx030929@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-good https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225866 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-01 20:46 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147174) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147174&action=view) Fixes ladspa detection in configure script -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 03:18:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:18:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225758] Merge Review: flex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020318.l123I3Bv001528@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-01 22:18 EST ------- MUSTFIX: - package must not own /usr/share/locale/* and /usr/share/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES - spec should use %find_lang -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 03:22:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:22:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020322.l123MpXS001876@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtkhtml3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 mbarnes at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From mbarnes at redhat.com 2007-02-01 22:22 EST ------- Fixed in gtkhtml3-3-13.5-2.fc6. The $RPM_OPT_FLAGS should be used regardless of whether strict_build_settings is enabled, so I added it directly to the make command, along with %{?_smp_mflags}. Thanks for catching this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 03:42:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:42:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225867] Merge Review: gthumb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020342.l123gWXY003270@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gthumb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225867 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-01 22:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > -libgthumbdir = $(libdir) > +libgthumbdir = $(libdir)/gthumb > > and autoreconf seems to achieve said goal But do the modules then find it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 03:53:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:53:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226892] Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020353.l123rZBS003984@bugzilla.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: kpowersave - kde power control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226892 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |226891 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 03:53:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 22:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226891] Review Request: dbus-qt - dbus bindings for qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020353.l123raI5003993@bugzilla.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: dbus-qt - dbus bindings for qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226891 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |226892 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 04:16:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 23:16:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225867] Merge Review: gthumb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020416.l124GrZ8005441@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gthumb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225867 ------- Additional Comments From yaneti at declera.com 2007-02-01 23:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > -libgthumbdir = $(libdir) > > +libgthumbdir = $(libdir)/gthumb > > > > and autoreconf seems to achieve said goal > > But do the modules then find it? yep. Everything appears to work fine. also $ readelf -a /usr/bin/gthumb /usr/lib/gthumb/modules/libjpegtran.so | grep RPATH 0x0000000f (RPATH) Library rpath: [/usr/lib/gthumb] 0x0000000f (RPATH) Library rpath: [/usr/lib/gthumb] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 04:19:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 23:19:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020419.l124J9FK005597@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From matt at rudeserver.com 2007-02-01 23:19 EST ------- Thank you. I have modified the config.h to use the more unique include guard: INCLUDED_RUDE_CONFIG_H As a result, I bumped the package version up to 5.0.5 and set the release to 1 http://www.rudeserver.com/config/download/rudeconfig.spec http://www.rudeserver.com/config/download/rudeconfig-5.0.5-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 05:01:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:01:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020501.l1251pWo008984@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-02 00:01 EST ------- APPROVED (In reply to comment #11) > Thank you. I have modified the config.h to use the more unique include guard: > > INCLUDED_RUDE_CONFIG_H OK, if you prefer it this way :) BTW: I can't find your name in owners.list - Could it be you need to a sponsor? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 05:24:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:24:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020524.l125OeNV009728@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 jeff at ocjtech.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jeff at ocjtech.us ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-02 00:24 EST ------- Well, blow me down... I've been working the past few days on a SDCC package as well but hadn't quite gotten my package to the point of being able to post a review request. A few items based upon what I've seen so far (but not a full review yet): 1. The "script-without-shebang" errors can be fixed with this: find . -type f -name \*.c | xargs chmod a-x 2. The zero length file errors can be ignored IMHO, it looks like those files are required for proper functioning, even though they are empty. 3. What about adding "libgc-devel" to the BR and --enable-libgc to the %configure line? From what I saw in the documentation this will help improve memory usage. I don't really know much about SDCC so I don't know if that would mean other tradeoffs. 4. What about adding "latex2html" to the BR and --enable-doc to the %configure file? This would allow the documentation to be included in the package. 5. The devel package doesn't own "%{_datadir}/sdcc". 6. Why remove the emacs files? Why not move them to "%{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/". That would make them easier to use if someone wanted to. 7. The main package isn't very useful without the -devel subpackage. Even though it will cause rpmlint to complain, what about having the main package require the -devel subpackage, or even eliminate the -devel subpackage and have just one package (even though that will cause rpmlint to complain even louder). 8. Is this being packaged in preparation for packaging GNU Radio? That's why I was packaging SDCC, but my GNU Radio package is in even less polished shape than my SDCC package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 05:30:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:30:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225866] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-good In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020530.l125UuqN009937@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-good https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225866 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-02 00:30 EST ------- Now that Core & Extras are being merged, we can build the plugins from the gst-plugins-good package that couldn't before because of the split. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 05:32:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:32:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225866] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-good In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020532.l125WHLD010027@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-good https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225866 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-02 00:32 EST ------- BTW, the ladspa plugins will be important down the road when Jokosher is finally ready to be packaged. Jokosher can use the ladspa plugins to apply effects to instrument tracks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 05:43:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:43:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 169919] Review Request: m17n-db - multilingualization datafiles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020543.l125hPJ5010442@bugzilla.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: m17n-db - multilingualization datafiles Alias: m17n-db-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169919 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|fedora-extras- | |list at redhat.com | CC| |fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com CC|fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com | CC| |fedora-extras- | |list at redhat.com majain at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |majain at redhat.com Alias| |m17n-db-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 Feb 2 05:43:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:43:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 169922] Review Request: m17n-lib - multilingual text library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020543.l125hUaq010453@bugzilla.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: m17n-lib - multilingual text library Alias: m17n-lib-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169922 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|fedora-extras- | |list at redhat.com | CC| |fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com CC|fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com | CC| |fedora-extras- | |list at redhat.com majain at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |majain at redhat.com Alias| |m17n-lib-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 Feb 2 05:50:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 00:50:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020550.l125oRRH010868@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-02 00:50 EST ------- Many of the apps in %{_bindir} carry very generic names: # rpm -qlp sdcc-2.6.0-1.i386.rpm /usr/bin/as-gbz80 /usr/bin/as-hc08 /usr/bin/as-z80 /usr/bin/aslink /usr/bin/asx8051 /usr/bin/link-gbz80 /usr/bin/link-hc08 /usr/bin/link-z80 /usr/bin/makebin /usr/bin/packihx /usr/bin/s51 /usr/bin/savr /usr/bin/sdcc /usr/bin/sdcclib /usr/bin/sdcdb /usr/bin/sdcpp /usr/bin/shc08 /usr/bin/sz80 IMO, all but the sdc-prefixed ones are way too generic. Does this package support --program-prefix? Also, I am pretty sure the debug infos are broken. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 06:07:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:07:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020607.l1267bgK011950@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pkgconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |224148 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 06:09:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:09:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020609.l1269Z3d012104@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-02 01:09 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > > IMO, all but the sdc-prefixed ones are way too generic. Does this package > support --program-prefix? While I see your point here, I can see using --program-prefix potentially causing problems with dependent packages... > Also, I am pretty sure the debug infos are broken. I noticed that as well. Could it be the -ggdb flag that it adds to the CFLAGS that causes the problems? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 06:31:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:31:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020631.l126VEjd013682@bugzilla.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: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-02 01:31 EST ------- Sorry to take so long on this one. I've been quite a bit backlogged at work. :( I really appreciate your patience. Soo.... here we go! == Formal Review of kazehakase 0.4.4-1 == GOOD: rpmlint is silent on both the source and binary RPMs. GOOD: The package follows the naming guidelines, and the spec file is named accordingly ("%{name}.spec"). GOOD: BuildRoot is "%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)", following the packaging guidelines. GOOD: No duplicate BuildRequires are included; and all necessary BuildRequires are listed. GOOD: Included documentation (%doc) is OK. GOOD: Package builds and runs against system copies of installed tools and libraries; and does not include its own local copies thereof. GOOD: Package includes an appropriate .desktop file since it is a graphical application; and desktop-file-install is properly used to install it. A BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is also present. GOOD: Macros are used instead of harcoded file names, and usage of these macros (including $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) is consistent throughout the spec file. GOOD: Locale files are handled correctly, using %find_lang. GOOD: Package is not relocatable. GOOD: Package includes appropriate code and content; and final directory and file ownership is OK. Configuration files are marked appropriately (%config). GOOD: Package does not own any system files/directories or any files/directories that conflict with another package. GOOD: Package license (GPL) is OK; and a copy of it is included in the package as documentation (%doc COPYING). The License field in the spec file properly reflects this. GOOD: Spec file is legible; and written in American English. GOOD: The source tarball matches that of upstream: $ md5sum SOURCES/kazehakase-0.4.4* 049fd40c238e6838bcdbe14c37cc9051 SOURCES/kazehakase-0.4.4-srpm.tar.gz 049fd40c238e6838bcdbe14c37cc9051 SOURCES/kazehakase-0.4.4-upstream.tar.gz GOOD: The package successfully builds in mock into x86 binary RPMs on both FC6 and devel/FC7. GOOD: No duplicates are listed in the %files section; and its %defattr line is good. GOOD: Package has an appropriate %clean section, which contains simply "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" GOOD: When installed, the application runs well with no apparent segfaults or major bugs. GOOD: Files are converted to UTF-8 encoding properly. GOOD: Package uses %{?_smp_mflags} and honors %optflags compiler flags properly. GOOD: Package contains no libtool archives (*.la files) N/A: No static libraries or rPath exclusions are needed. N/A: Package is not a web application. N/A: No ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch tweaking is required. N/A: Package installs no shared libraries into the standard $LIBDIR; thus %post/%postun scriplets of /sbin/ldconfig are not needed. N/A: No large (neither in size nor in quantity) documentation is included, thus no -doc subpackage is needed. N/A: No headers, no pkgconfig files, and no static or unsuffixed shared libraries are included. Thus, no -devel subpackage is needed. N/A: Package contains no %description or Summary translations. N/A: Scriplets are not required for this package. ** FIXME: The only potential issue I see I see with this is the following in the %configure output: ------------------- checking for IceConnectionNumber in -lICE... no checking for SmcSaveYourselfDone in -lSM... no checking X11/SM/SMlib.h usability... no checking X11/SM/SMlib.h presence... no checking for X11/SM/SMlib.h... no ------------------- Perusing through the source (kazahakse-0.4.4/src/kz-app.c), it seems that it can optionally build with XSM (X session manager) support, which is probably a desired feature. :) Adding libSM-devel to the BuildRequires enables this. If you fix this, I'll approve the package for importing. Woo! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 06:34:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:34:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020634.l126YON5013930@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-02 01:34 EST ------- Good news! I just received this email from upstream: > Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:58:35 -0700 (Fri, 00:58 EST) > From: Kevin Vigor > To: John T. Guthrie III > Subject: Re: Problem with dxpc on 64-bit machines? > John, > I have just put together a probable fix for this problem; lacking a > 64-bit system to test it on, I am awaiting feedback from the user who > first reported it. If you would like to try the proposed fix yourself > you can grab dxpc 3.9.1 beta 1 from http://www.vigor.nu/dxpc-3.9.1b1.tgz. > If you can't or don't want to test this version I will let you know > the results of testing as soon as I know them. > Thanks, > Kevin I have asked Kevin for a patch file as well. At this point, I could go ahead and get the new version of the software and re-package it, but I don't know how that would affect the current packaging process. Or we could just do a diff. Any thoughts? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 06:49:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 01:49:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020649.l126nP7w014429@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pkgconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-02 01:49 EST ------- MUSTFIX: - Invalid debuginfos. Please remove the strip %{bindir}/* line - Package ships an aclocal macro => Requires: automake - %makeinstall Package supports make DESTDIR and therefore should use it. SHOULD: - Package wastes time on building shared libs while it only uses the static one => Consider %configure ... --disable-shared Remark: pkgconfig shipping a local copy of glib and links statically against is gradually showing its negative sides. The amount of warnings this code emits proves this code to be showing its age and lets it appear as really error-prone. Should pkgconfig support linking against an external glib, this would be preferred. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 07:03:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 02:03:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020703.l12739eG014925@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-02 02:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Also, I am pretty sure the debug infos are broken. > > I noticed that as well. Could it be the -ggdb flag that it adds to the CFLAGS > that causes the problems? I haven't checked details yet, but this and other CFLAGS-weirdnesses (Some piece use -g3, some other use -gstab, sorry I just deleted the log) are likely candidates. Another candidate is rpmbuild/redhat-rpm-config itself. It doesn't properly distinguish between native and foreign object files. Working around this had forced me to apply pretty nasty tricks in my cross-compiler rpms. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 07:12:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 02:12:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020712.l127C1RN015227@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pkgconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-02 02:12 EST ------- No objections here. The remark is of course moot, since pkgconfig does not support linking against an external glib, but I'll point out that you'd have some bootstrapping fun with it, since glibs configure script uses pkgconfig nowadays. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 07:29:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 02:29:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020729.l127Tbd5015949@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pkgconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-02 02:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > No objections here. > > The remark is of course moot, since pkgconfig does not support linking against > an external glib, but I'll point out that you'd have some bootstrapping fun with it, > since glibs configure script uses pkgconfig nowadays. I am well aware about the bootstrapping issue. But this is nothing which can't be overcome: 1. Build incrementally (this is what glibc, the kernel and GCC do). 2. Make glib a drop in-package to pkgconfig (This is what GCC does with some of its components) 3. Make building and using pkgconfig's glib an option to pkg-config. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 07:33:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 02:33:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020733.l127XQbb016134@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-02 02:33 EST ------- AHHH , me stupid yes I forgot that as usual, will I ever learn? I'll fix that together with a note about the music license and any other needed fixes when a full review is done. Unless the reviewer wants a fixed version before beginning in that case let me know. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 07:36:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 02:36:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020736.l127aZhd016230@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtkhtml3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-02 02:36 EST ------- $CFLAGS is automatically set to $RPM_OPT_FLAGS by %configure if so there should be no need to set it expliclitly, see "rpm -E %configure". The problem was that CFLAGS was set (to a value that didn't contain the optflags), and thus %configure didn't touch it. Explicitly setting CFLAGS in the "make ..." line may be a problem because it will trump everything in CFLAGS that ./configure may have set (ie. added to the CFLAGS in environment). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 07:51:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 02:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020751.l127p15h016605@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pkgconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-02 02:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > - Package ships an aclocal macro > => Requires: automake This is strictly speaking correct, but 1) needs to be accompanied by an effort to make sure that no non-devel packages in the distro have a dependency on pkgconfig, or 2) the aclocal macro in this package be split to pkgconfig-devel subpackage. Otherwise the end result is that a bunch of nontrivial dependencies will be brought in to regular non-devel setups where they are useless bloat. Currently examples of non-devel packages requiring pkgconfig include metacity, gd, gnome-icon-theme and gnome-applets, and I'm sure there's a lot more. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 08:00:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 03:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020800.l1280VeP016843@bugzilla.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: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-02 03:00 EST ------- Thank you for first reviewing!! (In reply to comment #19) > ** FIXME: The only potential issue I see I see with this is the following in the > %configure output: > ------------------- > checking for IceConnectionNumber in -lICE... no > checking for SmcSaveYourselfDone in -lSM... no > checking X11/SM/SMlib.h usability... no > checking X11/SM/SMlib.h presence... no > checking for X11/SM/SMlib.h... no > ------------------- Umm.. Why didn't I notice this? Bad... fixed. And it seems that 0.4.4.1 is released two days ago. http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/kazehakase.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/kazehakase-0.4.4.1-1.src.rpm --------------------------------------------------- * Fri Feb 2 2007 Mamoru Tasaka - 0.4.4.1-1 - 0.4.4.1 * Fri Feb 2 2007 Mamoru Tasaka - 0.4.4-2 - Add more BuildRequires: anthy-devel, libSM-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 08:28:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 03:28:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225880] Merge Review: hal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020828.l128ShLQ017666@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225880 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-02 03:28 EST ------- MUSTFIX: - package must not own /usr/share/locale/* and /usr/share/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES Package should use %find_lang - Source0 is not an absolute URL - *-devel contains *.pc => Requires: pkgconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 09:00:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:00:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226892] Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020900.l12907Np019668@bugzilla.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: kpowersave - kde power control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226892 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |gauret at free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-02 04:00 EST ------- Needs work: * Source 0 is not available, please replace it with http://dl.sf.net/powersave/kpowersave-%{version}.tar.bz2 * BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is missing * Build failed in mock, missing buildrequires: hal-devel (at least). Please test the build in mock. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 09:00:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:00:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220381] Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020900.l1290ckB019761@bugzilla.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: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-02 04:00 EST ------- Another note... I realized flex can't have .so library, because binaries would then be runtime-dependent on flex. -- 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 Feb 2 09:16:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:16:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020916.l129G8DR021637@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-02 04:16 EST ------- The diff against 3.9.0 is just 4629 in size. You could apply it *or* simply build a dxpc-3.9.1-0.1.b1%{?dist} package in accordance with versioning scheme for pre-releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 09:25:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:25:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020925.l129PMlU025066@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-02 04:25 EST ------- rpaths are OK as long as they're not for a standard library path such as /usr/lib or /usr/lib64. The SELinux issue is probably due to the way that the libdbgperspectiveplugin object is coded; what does it actually do? It may be worth pointing upstream to http://people.redhat.com/drepper/selinux-mem.html which may give some clue as to how to avoid the problem. In the short term, a fix would probably be to do: chcon -t textrel_shlib_t /usr/lib/nemiver/plugins/dbgperspective/libdbgperspectiveplugin.so -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 09:34:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:34:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020934.l129YgoX025634@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-02 04:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Well, blow me down... I've been working the past few days on a SDCC > package as well but hadn't quite gotten my package to the point of > being able to post a review request. A few items based upon what I've > seen so far (but not a full review yet): > > 1. The "script-without-shebang" errors can be fixed with this: > > find . -type f -name \*.c | xargs chmod a-x FIXED > > 2. The zero length file errors can be ignored IMHO, it looks like > those files are required for proper functioning, even though they > are empty. Is there a typo in there? Should the zero length files be kept or not? > > 3. What about adding "libgc-devel" to the BR and --enable-libgc to the > %configure line? From what I saw in the documentation this will > help improve memory usage. I don't really know much about SDCC so > I don't know if that would mean other tradeoffs. FIXED. I have added the neccessary Requires and BuildRequires, and the package build just fine with --enable-libgc. > > 4. What about adding "latex2html" to the BR and --enable-doc to the > %configure file? This would allow the documentation to be included > in the package. FIXED For some reason, sdcc requires lyx to build the documentation, and lyx depends on latex2html. > > 5. The devel package doesn't own "%{_datadir}/sdcc". Devel package removed, see 7. > > 6. Why remove the emacs files? Why not move them to > "%{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/". That would make them easier to use > if someone wanted to. FIXED > > 7. The main package isn't very useful without the -devel subpackage. > Even though it will cause rpmlint to complain, what about having > the main package require the -devel subpackage, or even eliminate > the -devel subpackage and have just one package (even though that > will cause rpmlint to complain even louder). I thought about that too, but rpmlint complained, so I created the devel package. But not I have removed it again, because it makes more sense to keep everything in one package. > > 8. Is this being packaged in preparation for packaging GNU Radio? > That's why I was packaging SDCC, but my GNU Radio package is in > even less polished shape than my SDCC package. It is! There are many things still missing, for instance AVR compiler and linker. I have stared creating a spec file for avr-binutils, but I did not have time to finish it. If you want to discuss this with me, you can contact me either on #gnuradio on irc.freenode.net or on discuss-gnuradio at gnu.org. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 09:36:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:36:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020936.l129aNlY025702@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-02 04:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > > IMO, all but the sdc-prefixed ones are way too generic. Does this package > > support --program-prefix? > > While I see your point here, I can see using --program-prefix potentially > causing problems with dependent packages... I tried building it with --program-prefix=sdcc, but it failed. I will have to look into this a bit further, if this is a requirement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 09:37:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226891] Review Request: dbus-qt - dbus bindings for qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020937.l129b9w2025753@bugzilla.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: dbus-qt - dbus bindings for qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226891 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |gauret at free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-02 04:37 EST ------- Review for release 1: * RPM name is OK * Source dbus-qt3-0.70.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * rpmlint looks OK * File lists look OK * Works fine APPROVED (note : 30 automatic checks have been run by fedora-qa) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 09:41:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:41:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020941.l129f3YW025995@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-02 04:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > > IMO, all but the sdc-prefixed ones are way too generic. Does this package > > support --program-prefix? > > While I see your point here, I can see using --program-prefix potentially > causing problems with dependent packages... > Would it be better to install everything under /usr/sdcc-i386, as suggested for cross compilers? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CrossCompilers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 09:55:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 04:55:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702020955.l129tpiY026835@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-02 04:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #3) > > 4. What about adding "latex2html" to the BR and --enable-doc to the > > %configure file? This would allow the documentation to be included > > in the package. > > FIXED > > For some reason, sdcc requires lyx to build the documentation, and lyx depends > on latex2html. > Correction: Lyx does _not_ depend on latex2html... BuildRequires added. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 10:12:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 05:12:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021012.l12ACbKO027725@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-02 05:12 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > > > > IMO, all but the sdc-prefixed ones are way too generic. Does this package > > > support --program-prefix? > > > > While I see your point here, I can see using --program-prefix potentially > > causing problems with dependent packages... > > > Would it be better to install everything under /usr/sdcc-i386, as suggested for > cross compilers? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CrossCompilers No. This would conflict with GCC's conventions. But what would work is to install the apps somewhere outside of %{_bindir}, e.g /usr/lib/sdcc/bin or /usr/libexec/sdcc and to install symlinks or wrapper scripts named "sdcc-" into %{_bindir} Other packages wanting to use the "non-prefixed" versions then could apply PATH=/usr/lib/scdc/bin:$PATH (or similar) to access the unprefixed versions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 10:17:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 05:17:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220381] Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021017.l12AHiaL028092@bugzilla.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: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-02 05:17 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > Another note... I realized flex can't have .so library, because binaries would > then be runtime-dependent on flex. You'd have to split the package into run-time/devel/static to get this working, but I do agree, this isn't very useful for flex-old/compat-flex. Let's stay with one package and static libs only in this particular case. -- 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 Feb 2 11:07:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 06:07:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220381] Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021107.l12B7X1R032612@bugzilla.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: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-02 06:07 EST ------- These comments are based on http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/compat-flex-2.5.4a-1.src.rpm # rpm -qlp compat-flex-2.5.4a-1.i386.rpm /usr/bin/flex++-2.5.4a /usr/bin/flex-2.5.4a /usr/include/flex-2.5.4a/FlexLexer.h /usr/lib/flex-2.5.4a/libfl.a /usr/share/doc/compat-flex-2.5.4a /usr/share/doc/compat-flex-2.5.4a/COPYING /usr/share/doc/compat-flex-2.5.4a/NEWS /usr/share/doc/compat-flex-2.5.4a/README /usr/share/info/flex-2.5.4a.info.gz /usr/share/man/man1/flex++-2.5.4a.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/flex-2.5.4a.1.gz MUSTFIX: - Package must own /usr/lib/flex-2.5.4a /usr/include/flex-2.5.4a - BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root Please change this to the current FE conventions. CONSIDER - I think this package should contain a small README.fedora, which outlines what it is and how it is supposed to be used (mentioning -I/usr/include/flex-2.5.4a and -L/usr/lib/flex-2.5.4a) Please decide upon the final name of this package, update your srpm once more, add a corresponding URL here in bugzilla and, provided you address the issues mentioned here-in, I'd approve this 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 Fri Feb 2 11:17:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 06:17:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021117.l12BHxbJ001134@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-02 06:17 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #9) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > > > > > > IMO, all but the sdc-prefixed ones are way too generic. Does this package > > > > support --program-prefix? > > > > > > While I see your point here, I can see using --program-prefix potentially > > > causing problems with dependent packages... > > > > > Would it be better to install everything under /usr/sdcc-i386, as suggested for > > cross compilers? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CrossCompilers > No. This would conflict with GCC's conventions. > > But what would work is to install the apps somewhere outside of %{_bindir}, > e.g > /usr/lib/sdcc/bin > or > /usr/libexec/sdcc > and to install symlinks or wrapper scripts named "sdcc-" into %{_bindir} > > Other packages wanting to use the "non-prefixed" versions then could apply > PATH=/usr/lib/scdc/bin:$PATH (or similar) to access the unprefixed versions. > FIXED. Binaries are now installed into /usr/libexec/sdcc, and symlinks are created in /usr/bin. Updated spec and srpm files are available at ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 13:37:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:37:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021337.l12DbWQC008917@bugzilla.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: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|matthias at rpmforge.net |rpm at greysector.net ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-02 08:37 EST ------- Sorry for taking so long... I've been using this package for over a month now, and all of the multimedia package I maintain which make use of libmp4v2 rebuild and run fine against it. Ready for review : http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/libmp4v2.spec http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/libmp4v2-1.5.0.1-3.fc6.src.rpm Since this bug is currently assigned to me, I'll reassign to you :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 13:39:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:39:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226891] Review Request: dbus-qt - dbus bindings for qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021339.l12Dd6AO009004@bugzilla.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: dbus-qt - dbus bindings for qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226891 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-02 08:38 EST ------- Thanks for the review. package has been revived and built -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 13:39:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:39:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226892] Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021339.l12DdIYE009035@bugzilla.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: kpowersave - kde power control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226892 Bug 226892 depends on bug 226891, which changed state. Bug 226891 Summary: Review Request: dbus-qt - dbus bindings for qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226891 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 13:49:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:49:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021349.l12DnAKx009590@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtkhtml3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 ------- Additional Comments From mbarnes at redhat.com 2007-02-02 08:49 EST ------- I added CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS" to the make command. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 13:49:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:49:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225758] Merge Review: flex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021349.l12Dnxq7009733@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-02 08:49 EST ------- Fixed in rawhide. Btw, rpmlint output: W: flex devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfl.a W: flex devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/FlexLexer.h flex is itself a development package, thus FlexLexer.h is OK here. libfl.a has to be static for the same reason, so that scanners that are linked against it don't runtime-depend on flex. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 14:34:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:34:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215569] Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021434.l12EYH3h013451@bugzilla.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: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215569 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-02 09:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #32) > No TEXTRELs anymore in x86 code. > Btw, making code x86 PIC-conform is really hard.. in amd64 I just write 'mov > rax,[var wrt rip]', in x86 I have to use call/pop, _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_, 'wrt > ..gotoff/..gotpc' and such weird stuff.. I decided to use a different (easier) > technique, but it's still much more difficult then a simple 'wrt rip' :( Heh, good stuff. Were these updates included with the 0.1.99.2 snap of beryl, or sometime after? I've got an updated srpm for 0.1.99.2 sitting here: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/beryl-vidcap/beryl-vidcap-0.1.99.2-1.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 14:46:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:46:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021446.l12EkxOZ014381@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtkhtml3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-02 09:46 EST ------- The end result is more or less the same except that $RPM_OPT_FLAGS will just end up twice in the actually used CFLAGS. Consider this: 1) export CFLAGS="-DFOO_BAR $RPM_OPT_FLAGS" 2) ./configure # let's assume configure added -DQUUX_BAZ to CFLAGS and thus wrote to Makefiles CFLAGS = -DFOO_BAR <$RPM_OPT_FLAGS expanded> -DQUUX_BAZ 3) make CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS" will expand to make CFLAGS="-DFOO_BAR <$RPM_OPT_FLAGS expanded> <$RPM_OPT_FLAGS expanded>" CFLAGS in Makefiles was overridden in 3) and thus -DQUUX_BAZ was lost. And $RPM_OPT_FLAGS ended up in CFLAGS twice. Whatever configure adds to CFLAGS affects what gets written to the Makefiles, not the environment, ie. step 3) won't know about it and will trump configure's modifications. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 14:50:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:50:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021450.l12EoeTm014506@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtkhtml3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 ville.skytta at iki.fi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147135|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-02 09:50 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147227) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147227&action=view) Use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS, take 2 Oops, I see you didn't add $RPM_OPT_FLAGS to the strict_build_settings block so comment 6 is somewhat inaccurate, but should still illustrate the point (no $RPM_OPT_FLAGS twice, but -DQUUZ_BAZ mayb still be lost). I still think that this patch is correct and should be applied. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 14:51:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:51:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225632] Merge Review: byacc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021451.l12EpMRF014550@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: byacc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225632 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-02 09:51 EST ------- Commited and built for rawhide updated and tidied-up version. Rpmlint silent for both binary and source rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:04:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:04:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021504.l12F4GGi015439@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800 ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2007-02-02 10:04 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147231) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147231&action=view) Build log from mock Hi Tom. I can't build this package from mock (or outside of it even). I've attached the build log. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:07:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:07:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225806] Merge Review: glibc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021507.l12F7YRe015661@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glibc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225806 Bug 225806 depends on bug 223691, which changed state. Bug 223691 Summary: glibc-devel: non-failsafe install-info use in scriptlets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223691 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:09:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:09:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021509.l12F9Wmo015757@bugzilla.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: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-02 10:09 EST ------- I'm probably overlooking something, but why is anthy-devel needed at build-time? Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:14:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:14:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021514.l12FElrM016026@bugzilla.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: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-02 10:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #21) > I'm probably overlooking something, but why is anthy-devel needed at build-time? > Thanks. Well, I rechecked the build log and I found: -------------------------------- checking for ANTHY... no -------------------------------- This can be turned to yes in current Fedora packages by installing anthy-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:19:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:19:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021519.l12FJt9B016362@bugzilla.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: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 peter at thecodergeek.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-02 10:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #22) > Well, I rechecked the build log and I found: > -------------------------------- > checking for ANTHY... no > -------------------------------- > This can be turned to yes in current Fedora packages by > installing anthy-devel. Awesome. From this, everything else looks good and this package is APPROVED. :] Please remember to close this bug as NEXTRELEASE after you've imported and built it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:19:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:19:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225899] Merge Review: indent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021519.l12FJxeq016385@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: indent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225899 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-02 10:19 EST ------- Commited and built for rawhide tidied-up version. Rpmlint silent for both binary and source rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:22:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:22:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225758] Merge Review: flex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021522.l12FMb1Z016531@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-02 10:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Fixed in rawhide. Hmm? Either you forgot to commit your, or the public cvs server is a different one the one you are accessing (and has not sync'ed yet). It is NOT fixed in cvs.fedora.redhat.com:/cvs/dist/devel/flex > Btw, rpmlint output: > W: flex devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libfl.a > W: flex devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/FlexLexer.h That's OK with me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:30:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021530.l12FUkD0016930@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtkhtml3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review- | ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-02 10:30 EST ------- Please set ASSIGNED to the person who needs to act next. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:33:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021533.l12FXSc6017184@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-02 10:33 EST ------- I could pick that up, but I'm not sure what the procedure is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:43:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:43:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 187317] Review Request: mindi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021543.l12FhrLu018107@bugzilla.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: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-02 10:43 EST ------- A few comments : * The spec file incoding should be UTF-8 * In %%prep : "-n %name-%version" is not needed, it's the default (it's not a blocker, do as you wish). You also may want to add -q to suppress the file listing on untarring. * If the package contains no binary, it should be "noarch" (BuildArch: noarch) Thanks for your patience and dedication. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:45:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218581] Review Request: mediawiki-openid - The OpenID extension for MediaWiki In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021545.l12FjluV018209@bugzilla.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: mediawiki-openid - The OpenID extension for MediaWiki https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218581 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Add OpenID extension to |Review Request: mediawiki- |mediawiki |openid - The OpenID | |extension for MediaWiki Component|mediawiki |Package Review AssignedTo|Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net |nobody at fedoraproject.org QAContact|extras-qa at fedoraproject.org |fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com OtherBugsDependingO| |163776 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-02 10:45 EST ------- I'm converting this into a new package request. Please note that this is a top-level approach, e.g. there are two packages which I will submit later today needed by this package as well as some changes to the mediawiki package itself. Spec URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/mediawiki-openid.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/mediawiki-openid-0.6.1-3.at.src.rpm Description: This extension lets users log in with an OpenID instead of a username and password. An OpenID is a special URL that people can use to log in to a Web site. The extension also lets users who have an account on the wiki log in to other OpenID-aware Web sites with their wiki user page as their OpenID. You must create a table in your MediaWiki database to hold the OpenID URL mappings. The openid_table.sql script in %{_datadir}/mediawiki/extensions/OpenID/ should do the trick. Typically you do this using the mysql command-line client, like so: mysql -h yourdbhost -u youradminuser -p yourwikidb < openid_table.sql In your MediaWiki LocalSettings.php, add the following line some place towards the bottom of the file: require_once("$IP/extensions/OpenID/OpenID.php"); Theoretically it should work out of the box, but you'll almost definitely want to set the trust root and access controls. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:47:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:47:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220891] Review Request: greylistd - Greylisting daemon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021547.l12FlEhl018322@bugzilla.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: greylistd - Greylisting daemon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220891 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-02 10:47 EST ------- Oops, forgot to properly close this one, thanks again for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:47:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:47:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] New: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame 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=226998 Summary: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gemdropx.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gemdropx-0.9-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Gem Drop X is a fast-paced puzzle game where it is your job to clear the screen of gems before they squash you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 15:47:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:47:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225792] Merge Review: gfs2-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021547.l12Fll3E018406@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gfs2-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225792 swhiteho at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kanderso at redhat.com, | |rkenna at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From swhiteho at redhat.com 2007-02-02 10:47 EST ------- What do we need to do in order to resolve this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 16:13:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:13:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215569] Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021613.l12GD9hB020176@bugzilla.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: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215569 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-02 11:13 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147234) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147234&action=view) Mock build log of beryl-vidcap-0.1.99.2-1.fc7 Mockbuild log of beryl-vidcap-0.1.99.2-1 on FC-devel i386. I just tried to rebuild, not checked anything else. However please check the log why rebuilding failed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 16:18:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:18:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225758] Merge Review: flex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021618.l12GIPiU020468@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225758 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-02 11:18 EST ------- Aha, the CVS that's accessible from outside is a read-only copy of Red Hat's CVS. I don't know how often do they sync. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 16:26:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:26:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219327] Review Request: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021626.l12GQtUo021005@bugzilla.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: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-02 11:26 EST ------- Thank you for reviewing and approving this package!! Well, * Rebuild for FE-devel succeeded. Umm.. this was the first package after ACL system is introduced into cvs system and I was a bit confused, actually... * SyncNeeded requested for FE-6, FE-5 (for FE-5, I have to recheck spec file) Now I close this bug as CLOSED NEXTRELEASE. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------- btw, I still meet deluge freeze on FC-devel (not on FC-5) I want to figure out what is the problem, however currently I don't know the way... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 16:27:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:27:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215569] Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021627.l12GRGEw021046@bugzilla.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: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215569 ------- Additional Comments From tom at dbservice.com 2007-02-02 11:27 EST ------- > ./seom.pc.in /usr lib > make: *** [seom.pc] Error 1 you have to either build seom from an official tarball (http://dbservice.com/ftpdir/tom/seom/tarballs/) or use a svn checkout and run 'make' from the directory. The reason is because seom uses either the file VERSION (which is automatically created when I build the tarball) or the output of 'svn info' to get the version, and the version is needed to build seom.pc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 16:51:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:51:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021651.l12GpPt3022383@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 denis at poolshark.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |denis at poolshark.org ------- Additional Comments From denis at poolshark.org 2007-02-02 11:51 EST ------- Since i'm upstream, i'll take on this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 16:54:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:54:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226892] Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021654.l12Gs5Ls022659@bugzilla.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: kpowersave - kde power control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226892 ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-02 11:53 EST ------- i grabbed the tarball from the ftp site but have changed the url. build in mock SRPM: http://www.ausil.us/packages/kpowersave-0.7.1-2.al3.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.ausil.us/packages/kpowersave.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 16:57:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:57:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220967] Review Request: libscigraphica - A library of gtk+ widgets for SciGraphica In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021657.l12GvZNM022829@bugzilla.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: libscigraphica - A library of gtk+ widgets for SciGraphica https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220967 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-02 11:57 EST ------- Imported into cvs and built. Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 16:57:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:57:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220968] Review Request: scigraphica - Scientific application for data analysis and technical graphics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021657.l12GvkYO022849@bugzilla.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: scigraphica - Scientific application for data analysis and technical graphics https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220968 Bug 220968 depends on bug 220967, which changed state. Bug 220967 Summary: Review Request: libscigraphica - A library of gtk+ widgets for SciGraphica https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220967 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 16:58:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:58:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220968] Review Request: scigraphica - Scientific application for data analysis and technical graphics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021658.l12Gwmt0022940@bugzilla.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: scigraphica - Scientific application for data analysis and technical graphics https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220968 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-02 11:58 EST ------- Imported and built too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:02:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021702.l12H27wr023085@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 denis at poolshark.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:07:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:07:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021707.l12H7pJ4023332@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |chris.stone at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:09:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:09:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021709.l12H9CUb023408@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:10:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:10:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021710.l12HAsKn023519@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |chris.stone at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | Alias| |duel3 Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-02 12:10 EST ------- No it's quite alright. I left this bug open for a day or so incase Jochen wanted to review it, but since no one has taken it I will. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:11:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224271] Review Request: rhts - A system for developing automated tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021711.l12HBJES023560@bugzilla.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: rhts - A system for developing automated tests https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224271 ------- Additional Comments From dmalcolm at redhat.com 2007-02-02 12:11 EST ------- (Still haven't resolved /mnt issue) Folded in upstream fix, to support hg repositories. Latest specfile here: http://people.redhat.com/dmalcolm/rhts-candidates/rhts-2.6.0.svn344-1/rhts.spec Latest SRPM here: http://people.redhat.com/dmalcolm/rhts-candidates/rhts-2.6.0.svn344-1/rhts-2.6.0.svn344-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:15:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:15:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199681] Review Request: slab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021715.l12HF3kp023767@bugzilla.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: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 ------- Additional Comments From denis at poolshark.org 2007-02-02 12:15 EST ------- Chris, do you think you'll have time to complete this submission ? If not, is anyone interested in taking over the package ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:23:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:23:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] New: Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant 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=227027 Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp.src.rpm Description: The Ant-Contrib project is a collection of tasks (and at one point maybe types and other tools) for Apache Ant. Javadoc for ant-contrib. Docs for ant-contrib. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:26:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:26:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220381] Review Request: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021726.l12HQuTR024770@bugzilla.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: flex-old - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-02 12:26 EST ------- - Package now owns /usr/lib/flex-2.5.4a /usr/include/flex-2.5.4a BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - README.fedora written, available in srpm, and for convenience also here: http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/README.fedora - The package will be called compat-flex, relevant files are here: http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/compat-flex.spec http://people.redhat.com/~pmachata/compat-flex-2.5.4a-1.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 Feb 2 17:28:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:28:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227032] New: Review Request: asm-1.5.3-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems 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=227032 Summary: Review Request: asm-1.5.3-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/asm-1.5.3-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/asm-1.5.3-2jpp.src.rpm Description: ASM is a code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems. Javadoc for asm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:29:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:29:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227034] New: Review Request: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems 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=227034 Summary: Review Request: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/asm2-2.1-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/asm2-2.1-2jpp.src.rpm Description: ASM is a code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems. Javadoc for asm2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:29:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:29:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227035] New: Review Request: aspectj-1.2.1-3jpp - AspectJ aspect-oriented language extension to Java 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=227035 Summary: Review Request: aspectj-1.2.1-3jpp - AspectJ aspect- oriented language extension to Java Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/aspectj-1.2.1-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/aspectj-1.2.1-3jpp.src.rpm Description: AspectJ is a seamless aspect-oriented language extension to Java(tm). It can be used to cleanly modularize the crosscutting structure of concerns such as exception handling, multi-object protocols, synchronization, performance optimizations, and resource sharing. When implemented in a non-aspect-oriented fashion, the code for these concerns typically becomes spread out across entire programs. AspectJ controls such code-tangling and makes the underlying concerns more apparent, making programs easier to develop and maintain. The project goal is to support the AspectJ compiler and core tools. Eclipse Plugins for aspectj. Installer for aspectj. Javadoc for aspectj. Docs for aspectj. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:29:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:29:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227037] New: Review Request: aspectwerkz-2.0-2jpp - AOP for Java 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=227037 Summary: Review Request: aspectwerkz-2.0-2jpp - AOP for Java Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/aspectwerkz-2.0-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/aspectwerkz-2.0-2jpp.src.rpm Description: AspectWerkz is a dynamic, lightweight and high-performant AOP/AOSD framework for Java. AspectWerkz utilizes runtime bytecode modification to weave your classes at runtime. It hooks in and weaves classes loaded by any class loader except the bootstrap class loader. It has a rich join point model. Aspects, advices and introductions are written in plain Java and your target classes can be regular POJOs. You have the possibility to add, remove and re-structure advices as well as swapping the implementation of your introductions at runtime. Your aspects can be defined using either an XML definition file or using Runtime Attributes. Javadoc for aspectwerkz. Documents for aspectwerkz. Samples for aspectwerkz. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:30:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:30:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227039] New: Review Request: backport-util-concurrent-2.1-1jpp - Backport of java.util.concurrent API, introduced in Java 5.0 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=227039 Summary: Review Request: backport-util-concurrent-2.1-1jpp - Backport of java.util.concurrent API, introduced in Java 5.0 Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/backport-util-concurrent-2.1-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/backport-util-concurrent-2.1-1jpp.src.rpm Description: This package is the backport of java.util.concurrent API, introduced in Java 5.0, to Java 1.4. The backport is based on public-domain sources from the JSR 166 CVS repository, and the dl.util.concurrent package. Javadoc for backport-util-concurrent. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:30:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:30:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227040] New: Review Request: batik-1.6-2jpp - Scalable Vector Graphics for Java 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=227040 Summary: Review Request: batik-1.6-2jpp - Scalable Vector Graphics for Java Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/batik-1.6-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/batik-1.6-2jpp.src.rpm Description: Batik is a Java(tm) technology based toolkit for applications that want to use images in the Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) format for various purposes, such as viewing, generation or manipulation. The project's ambition is to give developers a set of core modules which can be used together or individually to support specific SVG solutions. Example modules are, SVG parsers, SVG generators and SVG DOM implementations. Another ambition for the Batik project is to make it highly extensible (for example, Batik allows the developer to handle custom SVG tags). Even though the goal of the project is to provide a set of core modules, one of the deliverables is a full fledged SVG browser implementation which validates the various modules and their interoperability. The Squiggle SVG Browser lets you view SVG file, zoom, pan and rotate in the content and select text items in the image and much more. The SVG Pretty Printer lets developers "pretty-up" their SVG files and get their tabulations and other cosmetic parameters in order. It can also be used to modify the DOCTYPE declaration on SVG files. The SVG Font Converter lets developers convert character ranges from the True Type Font format to the SVG Font format to embed in SVG documents. This allows SVG document to be fully self-contained be rendered exactly the same on all systems. The SVG Rasterizer is a utility that can convert SVG files to a raster format. The tool can convert individual files or sets of files, making it easy to convert entire directories of SVG files. The supported formats are JPEG, PNG, and TIFF, however the design allows new formats to be added easily. Batik SVG slideshow. Documentation for batik. Javadoc for batik. Demonstrations and samples for batik. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:30:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:30:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227041] New: Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML 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=227041 Summary: Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Streaming API for XML (StAX) is a groundbreaking new Java API for parsing and writing XML easily and efficiently. The StAX API. Javadoc for bea-stax -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:31:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:31:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227042] New: Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension 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=227042 Summary: Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/byaccj-1.11-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/fedora-4/SRPMS.free/byaccj-1.11-2jpp.src.rpm Description: BYACC/J is an extension of the Berkeley v 1.8 YACC-compatible parser generator. Standard YACC takes a YACC source file, and generates one or more C files from it, which if compiled properly, will produce a LALR-grammar parser. This is useful for expression parsing, interactive command parsing, and file reading. Many megabytes of YACC code have been written over the years. This is the standard YACC tool that is in use every day to produce C/C++ parsers. I have added a "-J" flag which will cause BYACC to generate Java source code, instead. So there finally is a YACC for Java now! This package provides debug information for package byaccj. Debug information is useful when developing applications that use this package or when debugging this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:31:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:31:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227043] New: Review Request: cglib-2.1.3-2jpp - Code Generation Library 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=227043 Summary: Review Request: cglib-2.1.3-2jpp - Code Generation Library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/cglib-2.1.3-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/cglib-2.1.3-2jpp.src.rpm Description: cglib is a powerful, high performance and quality Code Generation Library, It is used to extend JAVA classes and implements interfaces at runtime. Cglib without aspectwerkz hook. Javadoc for cglib. Samples for cglib. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:31:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:31:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227044] New: Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker 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=227044 Summary: Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/checkstyle-4.1-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/checkstyle-4.1-3jpp.src.rpm Description: A tool for checking Java source code for adherence to a set of rules. Demonstrations and samples for checkstyle. Javadoc for checkstyle. Manual for checkstyle. Optional functionality for checkstyle. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:31:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:31:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227046] New: Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser 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=227046 Summary: Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp.src.rpm Description: GNU JAXP, a part of the GNU Classpath Extensions project (hosted at savannah.gnu.org) is a free implementation of the standard XML processing APIs for Java: - SAX Parser API - DOM Level 2 generic XML data structures - Sun's JAXP v1.1 interfaces Javadoc for classpathx-jaxp. Additional utility scripts for classpathx-jaxp. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:32:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:32:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227047] New: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework 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=227047 Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp.src.rpm Description: Classworlds is a framework for container developers who require complex manipulation of Java's ClassLoaders. Java's native ClassLoader mechanims and classes can cause much headache and confusion for certain types of application developers. Projects which involve dynamic loading of components or otherwise represent a 'container' can benefit from the classloading control provided by classworlds. Javadoc for classworlds. Docs for classworlds. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:32:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:32:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] New: Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite 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=227048 Summary: Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp.src.rpm Description: The DOM Test Suites (DOM TS) will consist of a number of tests for each level of the DOM specification. The tests will be represented in an XML grammar which ensures that tests can easily be ported from the description format to a number of specific language bindings. This grammar will be specified in XML Schema and DTD form. The grammar will be automatically generated from the DOM specifications themselves, to ensure stability and correctness. Javadoc for dom2-core-tests. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:33:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:33:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227049] New: Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J 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=227049 Summary: Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp.src.rpm Description: dom4j is an Open Source XML framework for Java. dom4j allows you to read, write, navigate, create and modify XML documents. dom4j integrates with DOM and SAX and is seamlessly integrated with full XPath support. Samples for dom4j. Documentation for dom4j. Javadoc for dom4j. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:33:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:33:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227050] New: Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser 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=227050 Summary: Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/dtdparser-1.21-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/dtdparser-1.21-3jpp.src.rpm Description: DTD parsers for Java seem to be pretty scarce. That's probably because DTD isn't valid XML. At some point, if/when XML Schema becomes widely accepted, no one will need DTD parsers anymore. Until then, you can use this library to parse a DTD. Javadoc for dtdparser. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:33:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:33:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227051] New: Review Request: easymock-1.2-1jpp - Easy mock objects 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=227051 Summary: Review Request: easymock-1.2-1jpp - Easy mock objects Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/easymock-1.2-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/easymock-1.2-1jpp.src.rpm Description: EasyMock provides Mock Objects for interfaces in JUnit tests by generating them on the fly using Java's proxy mechanism. Due to EasyMock's unique style of recording expectations, most refactorings will not affect the Mock Objects. So EasyMock is a perfect fit for Test-Driven Development. Javadoc for easymock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:34:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:34:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227052] New: Review Request: emma-2.0-0.5312.1jpp - Code Coverage Tool 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=227052 Summary: Review Request: emma-2.0-0.5312.1jpp - Code Coverage Tool Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/emma-2.0-0.5312.1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/emma-2.0-0.5312.1jpp.src.rpm Description: EMMA is an open-source toolkit for measuring and reporting Java code coverage. EMMA distinguishes itself from other tools by going after a unique feature combination: support for large-scale enterprise software development while keeping individual developer's work fast and iterative. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:34:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:34:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227053] New: Review Request: excalibur-avalon-framework-4.3-6jpp - Avalon Framework 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=227053 Summary: Review Request: excalibur-avalon-framework-4.3-6jpp - Avalon Framework Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/excalibur-avalon-framework-4.3-6jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/excalibur-avalon-framework-4.3-6jpp.src.rpm Description: The Avalon Framework consists of interfaces that define relationships between commonly used application components, best-of-practice pattern enforcements, and several lightweight convenience implementations of the generic components Avalon Framework API. Avalon Framework Implementation. Javadoc for excalibur-avalon-framework. Javadoc for excalibur-avalon-framework API. Javadoc for excalibur-avalon-framework Implementation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:35:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:35:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227054] New: Review Request: excalibur-avalon-logkit-2.1-8jpp - Excalibur's Logkit package 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=227054 Summary: Review Request: excalibur-avalon-logkit-2.1-8jpp - Excalibur's Logkit package Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/excalibur-avalon-logkit-2.1-8jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/excalibur-avalon-logkit-2.1-8jpp.src.rpm Description: LogKit is a logging toolkit designed for secure performance orientated logging in applications. To get started using LogKit, it is recomended that you read the whitepaper and browse the API docs. Javadoc for excalibur-avalon-logkit. Documents for excalibur-avalon-logkit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:35:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:35:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227055] New: Review Request: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter 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=227055 Summary: Review Request: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/fop-0.20.5-9jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/fop-0.20.5-9jpp.src.rpm Description: FOP is the world's first print formatter driven by XSL formatting objects. It is a Java application that reads a formatting object tree and then turns it into a PDF document. The formatting object tree, can be in the form of an XML document (output by an XSLT engine like XT or Xalan) or can be passed in memory as a DOM Document or (in the case of XT) SAX events. Javadoc for fop. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:36:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227056] New: Review Request: geronimo-specs-1.1-1jpp - Geronimo J2EE server J2EE specifications 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=227056 Summary: Review Request: geronimo-specs-1.1-1jpp - Geronimo J2EE server J2EE specifications Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/geronimo-specs-1.1-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/geronimo-specs-1.1-1jpp.src.rpm Description: Geronimo is Apache's ASF-licenced J2EE server project. These are the J2EE-Specifications Javadoc for geronimo-specs. CommonJ Spec Java Activation Framework CORBA 1.0 Spec CORBA 2.3 Spec CORBA 3.0 Spec Enterprise JavaBeans Specification J2EE Specification (the complete set in one jar) J2EE Connector Architecture Specification J2EE Application Deployment Specification Java Authorization Contract for Containers Specification J2EE Application Management Specification JavaMail API Java API for XML Registries (JAXR) Java API for XML-Based RPC (JAXRPC) JMS Specification JavaServer Pages Specification Java Transaction API Specification javax.xml.namespace.QName API SOAP with Attachments API for Java (SAAJ) J2EE Servlet v2.4 API -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:36:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:36:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227057] New: Review Request: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation 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=227057 Summary: Review Request: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp.src.rpm Description: The gnu.regexp package is a pure-Java implementation of a traditional (non-POSIX) NFA regular expression engine. Its syntax can emulate many popular development tools, including awk, sed, emacs, perl and grep. For a relatively complete list of supported and non-supported syntax, refer to the syntax and usage notes. Demonstrations and samples for gnu-regexp. Javadoc for gnu-regexp. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:36:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:36:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] New: Review Request: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java 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=227058 Summary: Review Request: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp.src.rpm Description: The GNU Trove library has two objectives: Provide "free" (as in "free speech" and "free beer"), fast, lightweight implementations of the java.util Collections API. These implementations are designed to be pluggable replacements for their JDK equivalents. Whenever possible, provide the same collections support for primitive types. This gap in the JDK is often addressed by using the "wrapper" classes (java.lang.Integer, java.lang.Float, etc.) with Object-based collections. For most applications, however, collections which store primitives directly will require less space and yield significant performance gains. Javadoc for gnu.trove. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:36:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:36:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227059] New: Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit 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=227059 Summary: Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp.src.rpm Description: HttpUnit emulates the relevant portions of browser behavior, including form submission, JavaScript, basic http authentication, cookies and automatic page redirection, and allows Java test code to examine returned pages either as text, an XML DOM, or containers of forms, tables, and links. A companion framework, ServletUnit is included in the package. Javadoc for httpunit Documentation for httpunit Demonstrations and samples for httpunit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:37:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:37:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227060] New: Review Request: icu4j-3.4.5-1jpp - International Components for Unicode for Java 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=227060 Summary: Review Request: icu4j-3.4.5-1jpp - International Components for Unicode for Java Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/icu4j-3.4.5-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/icu4j-3.4.5-1jpp.src.rpm Description: The International Components for Unicode (ICU) library provides robust and full-featured Unicode services on a wide variety of platforms. ICU supports the most current version of the Unicode standard, and provides support for supplementary characters (needed for GB 18030 repertoire support). Java provides a very strong foundation for global programs, and IBM and the ICU team played a key role in providing globalization technology into Sun's Java. But because of its long release schedule, Java cannot always keep up-to-date with evolving standards. The ICU team continues to extend Java's Unicode and internationalization support, focusing on improving performance, keeping current with the Unicode standard, and providing richer APIs, while remaining as compatible as possible with the original Java text and internationalization API design. Javadoc for icu4j. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:37:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:37:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227061] New: Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core 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=227061 Summary: Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The ISO RELAX project is started to host the public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core. But nowadays some of the stuff we have is schema language neutral. Javadoc for isorelax. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:37:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:37:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227062] New: Review Request: jacorb-2.2.3-2jpp - Free Java implementation of OMG's CORBA standard 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=227062 Summary: Review Request: jacorb-2.2.3-2jpp - Free Java implementation of OMG's CORBA standard Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jacorb-2.2.3-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jacorb-2.2.3-2jpp.src.rpm Description: - high-performance, fully multithreaded ORB - IDL compiler, supports OMG IDL/Java language mapping rev. 2.3, OBV - native IIOP, GIOP 1.2 and Bidirectional GIOP - POA (Portable Object Adapter) - AMI (Asynchronous Method Invocations) - ETF (Extensible Transport Framework) - POAMonitor, a GUI tools that lets you inspect your object adapters (screenshot) - Dynamic Invocation Interface (DII) and Dynamic Skeleton Interface (DSI) - Dynamic Management of Anys (DynAny) - Portable Interceptors (standard) - OMG Interoperable Naming Service - NameManager, a GUI browser for the name service (requires Swing or JDK 1.2) (screenshot) - improved IIOP over SSL, includes KeyStoreManager - OMG Notification and Event service - Transaction Service, Collection and Concurrency services - TradingService (supports trader links), an extension of Mark Spruiell's free JTrader - CORBA 2.3 Code set support - Appligator, an IIOP proxy - Support for HTTP tunneling - Domain Manager, an object domain management service, includes a domain browser GUI - Interface Repository - IRBrowser, a GUI front end for the Interface Repository - Implementation Repository - Implementation Repository Manager, a GUI front end for the Implementation Repository - IDL and Java source for all CORBA/COSS interfaces - examples and full source code included - 100% pure Java, JDK 1.3 and 1.4 compatible, also cooperates with Sun's JDK 1.2 classes (releases prior to 1.4 are compatible with JDK 1.1) Javadoc for jacorb Documents for jacorb Usage examples for jacorb -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:38:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:38:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227063] New: Review Request: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java 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=227063 Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp.src.rpm Description: The CLI library provides a simple and easy to use API for working with the command line arguments and options. Javadoc for jakarta-commons-cli. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:38:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:38:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227064] New: Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package 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=227064 Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp.src.rpm Description: Commons-IO contains utility classes, stream implementations, file filters, and endian classes. Javadoc for jakarta-commons-io -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:39:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:39:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227065] New: Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package 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=227065 Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp.src.rpm Description: This is an Internet protocol suite Java library originally developed by ORO, Inc. This version supports Finger, Whois, TFTP, Telnet, POP3, FTP, NNTP, SMTP, and some miscellaneous protocols like Time and Echo as well as BSD R command support. The purpose of the library is to provide fundamental protocol access, not higher-level abstractions. Javadoc for jakarta-commons-net. Documents for jakarta-commons-net. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:39:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:39:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227066] New: Review Request: jarjar-0.6-2jpp - Jar Jar Links 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=227066 Summary: Review Request: jarjar-0.6-2jpp - Jar Jar Links Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.src.rpm Description: Jar Jar Links is a utility that makes it easy to repackage Java libraries and embed them into your own distribution. This is useful for two reasons: You can easily ship a single jar file with no external dependencies. You can avoid problems where your library depends on a specific version of a library, which may conflict with the dependencies of another library. Javadoc for jarjar. Manual for jarjar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:40:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:40:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] New: Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation 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=227067 Summary: Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/javassist-3.1-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/javassist-3.1-1jpp.src.rpm Description: Javassist (Java Programming Assistant) makes Java bytecode manipulation simple. It is a class library for editing bytecodes in Java; it enables Java programs to define a new class at runtime and to modify a class file when the JVM loads it. Unlike other similar bytecode editors, Javassist provides two levels of API: source level and bytecode level. If the users use the source-level API, they can edit a class file without knowledge of the specifications of the Java bytecode. The whole API is designed with only the vocabulary of the Java language. You can even specify inserted bytecode in the form of source text; Javassist compiles it on the fly. On the other hand, the bytecode-level API allows the users to directly edit a class file as other editors. Samples for javassist. Javadoc for javassist. Tutorial for javassist. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:40:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:40:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227068] New: Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java 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=227068 Summary: Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp.src.rpm Description: Jaxen is an XPath engine written in Java to work against a variety of XML based object models such as DOM, dom4j and JDOM together with Java Beans. Documents for jaxen. Samples for jaxen. Javadoc for jaxen. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:40:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:40:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227069] New: Review Request: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j 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=227069 Summary: Review Request: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp.src.rpm Description: Dom4j depends on a jaxen build with dom4j support. This package must only be installed in the rare event of having to rebuild dom4j. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:41:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:41:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227070] New: Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator 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=227070 Summary: Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jflex-1.3.5-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jflex-1.3.5-2jpp.src.rpm Description: JFlex is a lexical analyzer generator (also known as scanner generator) for Java(tm), written in Java(tm). It is also a rewrite of the very useful tool JLex which was developed by Elliot Berk at Princeton University. As Vern Paxson states for his C/C++ tool flex: They do not share any code though. JFlex is designed to work together with the LALR parser generator CUP by Scott Hudson, and the Java modification of Berkeley Yacc BYacc/J by Bob Jamison. It can also be used together with other parser generators like ANTLR or as a standalone tool. Javadoc for jflex. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:41:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:41:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227071] New: Review Request: jline-0.9.9-1jpp - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications 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=227071 Summary: Review Request: jline-0.9.9-1jpp - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jline-0.9.9-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jline-0.9.9-1jpp.src.rpm Description: JLine is a java library for reading and editing user input in console applications. It features tab-completion, command history, password masking, customizable keybindings, and pass-through handlers to use to chain to other console applications. Demonstrations and samples for jline. Javadoc for jline. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:41:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:41:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227072] New: Review Request: jmock-1.0.1-3jpp - Test Java code using mock objects 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=227072 Summary: Review Request: jmock-1.0.1-3jpp - Test Java code using mock objects Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jmock-1.0.1-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jmock-1.0.1-3jpp.src.rpm Description: jMock is a library for testing Java code using mock objects. Mock objects help you design and test the interactions between the objects in your programs. The jMock package: * makes it quick and easy to define mock objects, so you don't break the rhythm of programming. * lets you define flexible constraints over object interactions, reducing the brittleness of your tests. * is easy to extend. Javadoc for jmock. Examples for jmock. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:41:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:41:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227073] New: Review Request: joda-time-1.2.1-1jpp - Java date and time API 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=227073 Summary: Review Request: joda-time-1.2.1-1jpp - Java date and time API Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/joda-time-1.2.1-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/joda-time-1.2.1-1jpp.src.rpm Description: Joda-Time provides a quality replacement for the Java date and time classes. The design allows for multiple calendar systems, while still providing a simple API. The 'default' calendar is the ISO8601 standard which is used by XML. The Gregorian, Julian, Buddhist, Coptic and Ethiopic systems are also included, and we welcome further additions. Supporting classes include time zone, duration, format and parsing. Javadoc for joda-time. Docs for joda-time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:41:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:41:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] New: Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java 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=227074 Summary: Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp.src.rpm Description: jrexx is a powerful easy-to-use regular expression API for textual pattern matching. Technically jrexx uses a minimized deterministic FSA (finite state automaton) and compiles the textual representation of the regular expression into such an automaton. Besides the usual pattern matching functionality, jrexx provides an introspection API for exploration of the automaton's structure by 'states' and 'transitions'. Since the automaton is deterministic and minimized the pattern matching alogorithm is extremly fast (compared to the java regular expression API in JDK1.4) and works with huge patterns and input texts. Since FSA can be handled as sets, jrexx also offers all basic set operations for complement, union, intersection and difference, which is not provided by other regex implementations (as far as we know). Javadoc for jrexx. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:42:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:42:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] New: Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer 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=227075 Summary: Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp.src.rpm Description: JTidy is a Java port of HTML Tidy, a HTML syntax checker and pretty printer. Like its non-Java cousin, JTidy can be used as a tool for cleaning up malformed and faulty HTML. In addition, JTidy provides a DOM parser for real-world HTML. Javadoc for jtidy. Utility scripts for jtidy. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:42:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:42:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227076] New: Review Request: juddi-0.9-0.rc4.2jpp - Open source Java implementation UDDI specification. 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=227076 Summary: Review Request: juddi-0.9-0.rc4.2jpp - Open source Java implementation UDDI specification. Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/juddi-0.9-0.rc4.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/juddi-0.9-0.rc4.2jpp.src.rpm Description: jUDDI (pronounced "Judy") is an open source Java implementation of the Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI) specification for Web Services. Javadoc for juddi. SQL statements for creation/configuration of a database for storing web services metadata for juddi. The Enterprise Archive (ear) file for juddi. The Web Archive (war) file for juddi. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:43:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:43:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227077] New: Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing 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=227077 Summary: Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.src.rpm Description: JUnitPerf is a collection of JUnit test decorators used to measure the performance and scalability of functionality contained within existing JUnit tests. Javadoc for junitperf. Demonstrations and samples for junitperf. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:43:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227078] New: Review Request: jython-2.2-0.a0.3jpp - Java source interpreter 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=227078 Summary: Review Request: jython-2.2-0.a0.3jpp - Java source interpreter Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jython-2.2-0.a0.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jython-2.2-0.a0.3jpp.src.rpm Description: Jython is an implementation of the high-level, dynamic, object-oriented language Python seamlessly integrated with the Java platform. The predecessor to Jython, JPython, is certified as 100% Pure Java. Jython is freely available for both commercial and non-commercial use and is distributed with source code. Jython is complementary to Java and is especially suited for the following tasks: Embedded scripting - Java programmers can add the Jython libraries to their system to allow end users to write simple or complicated scripts that add functionality to the application. Interactive experimentation - Jython provides an interactive interpreter that can be used to interact with Java packages or with running Java applications. This allows programmers to experiment and debug any Java system using Jython. Rapid application development - Python programs are typically 2-10X shorter than the equivalent Java program. This translates directly to increased programmer productivity. The seamless interaction between Python and Java allows developers to freely mix the two languages both during development and in shipping products. Documentation for jython. Javadoc for jython. Demonstrations and samples for jython. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:44:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:44:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227079] New: Review Request: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 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=227079 Summary: Review Request: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm Description: This package is a collection of poms required by various maven2 dependent packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:44:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:44:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227080] New: Review Request: maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp - Doxia is a content generation framework 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=227080 Summary: Review Request: maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp - Doxia is a content generation framework Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp.src.rpm Description: Doxia is a content generation framework which aims to provide its users with powerful techniques for generating static and dynamic content. Doxia can be used to generate static sites in addition to being incorporated into dynamic content generation systems like blogs, wikis and content management systems. Javadoc for maven-doxia. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:44:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:44:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227081] New: Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool. 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=227081 Summary: Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool. Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp.src.rpm Description: Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool. Javadoc for maven-jxr. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:45:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:45:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227082] New: Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging 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=227082 Summary: Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp.src.rpm Description: Basic API for lightweight logging. Tests for maven-scm. Javadoc for maven-scm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:45:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:45:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227083] New: Review Request: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components 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=227083 Summary: Review Request: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-shared-1.0-4jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-shared-1.0-4jpp.src.rpm Description: Maven Shared Components Maven Shared File Management API. Javadoc for maven-shared-file-management. Maven Shared Plugin Testing Harness. Javadoc for maven-shared-plugin-testing-harness. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:46:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:46:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227084] New: Review Request: maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp - Surefire is a test framework project. 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=227084 Summary: Review Request: maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp - Surefire is a test framework project. Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.src.rpm Description: Surefire is a test framework project. Surefire is a test framework project. Javadoc for maven-surefire. Javadoc for maven-surefire. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:46:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:46:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227085] New: Review Request: maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Maven Wagon 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=227085 Summary: Review Request: maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Maven Wagon Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp.src.rpm Description: Maven Wagon is a transport abstraction that is used in Maven's artifact and repository handling code. Currently wagon has the following providers: * File * HTTP * FTP * SSH/SCP * WebDAV (in progress) Javadoc for maven-wagon. Documents for maven-wagon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:46:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:46:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227086] New: Review Request: mockobjects-0.09-16jpp - Java MockObjects package 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=227086 Summary: Review Request: mockobjects-0.09-16jpp - Java MockObjects package Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/mockobjects-0.09-16jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/mockobjects-0.09-16jpp.src.rpm Description: The Mock Objects project is a generic unit testing framework whose goal is to facilitate developing unit tests in the mock object style. The goal of this project is to provide, a core mock objects framework. This is a library of code that supports the implementation of mock objects. It is based around a set of expectation classes for values and collections. There are also various other classes to make mock objects easier to write or to use. MockObjects specific to JDK 1.4.x MockObjects for Jakarta Commons HttpClient Alternative API for Jakarta Commons HttpClient to allow for testing Alternative API for JDK 1.4 to allow for testing API for JDK 1.4 to allow testing with J2EE 1.4 mocks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:47:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:47:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227087] New: Review Request: modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp - Modello Data Model toolkit 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=227087 Summary: Review Request: modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp - Modello Data Model toolkit Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp.src.rpm Description: Modello is a Data Model toolkit in use by the http://maven.apache.org/maven2. It all starts with the Data Model. Once a data model is defined, the toolkit can be used to generate any of the following at compile time. Java POJOs of the model. Java POJOs to XML Writer (provided via xpp3 or dom4j). XML to Java Pojos Reader (provided via xpp3 or dom4j). XDoc documentation of the data model. Java model to [Prevayler|http://www.prevayler.org/] Store. Java model to [JPOX|http://www.jpox.org/] Store. Java model to [JPOX|http://www.jpox.org/] Mapping. Javadoc for modello. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:47:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:47:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227088] New: Review Request: mojo-maven2-plugins-1.0-2jpp - Maven2 plugin set from mojo.codehaus.org 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=227088 Summary: Review Request: mojo-maven2-plugins-1.0-2jpp - Maven2 plugin set from mojo.codehaus.org Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/mojo-maven2-plugins-1.0-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/mojo-maven2-plugins-1.0-2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Mojo project allows a bunch of people not necessarily involved with the Maven project to come along and build some plugins. Maven plugins may also be developed here because they are not compatible with the Apache license. Plugin authors may choose to use other licenses (BSD, GPL, MPL ...) to license their work or may be forced to because of the nature of the plugin and its dependencies. These plugin authors are responsible for working with their plugins license but the mailing lists are a great place to get help if people get confused on what can or can not be done within the mojo project. Axistools plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Build Helper plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Castor plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Changes plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Clirr plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Cobertura plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Commons Attributes plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Dependency plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Exec plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Findbugs plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. FIT plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. IDLJ plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. JavaCC plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. JavaNCSS plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. JDepend plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Jspc plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. JXR plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Keytool plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. SQL plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. XDoclet plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. XmlBeans plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Xslt plugin from mojo-maven2-plugins. Javadoc for mojo-maven2-plugins. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:47:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:47:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227089] New: Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator 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=227089 Summary: Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Sun Multi-Schema XML Validator (MSV) is a Java technology tool to validate XML documents against several kinds of XML schemata. It supports RELAX NG, RELAX Namespace, RELAX Core, TREX, XML DTDs, and a subset of XML Schema Part 1. This latest (version 1.2) release includes several bug fixes and adds better conformance to RELAX NG/W3C XML standards and JAXP masquerading. MSV proper. Javadoc for MSV proper. Samples for msv. Relames. Javadoc for relames. rngconv. xmlgen. Javadoc for xmlgen. xsdlib. Javadoc for xsdlib. Documents for msv. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:48:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:48:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227090] New: Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer 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=227090 Summary: Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp.src.rpm Description: NekoHTML is a simple HTML scanner and tag balancer that enables application programmers to parse HTML documents and access the information using standard XML interfaces. The parser can scan HTML files and "fix up" many common mistakes that human (and computer) authors make in writing HTML documents. NekoHTML adds missing parent elements; automatically closes elements with optional end tags; and can handle mismatched inline element tags. NekoHTML is written using the Xerces Native Interface (XNI) that is the foundation of the Xerces2 implementation. This enables you to use the NekoHTML parser with existing XNI tools without modification or rewriting code. Javadoc for nekohtml. Demonstrations and samples for nekohtml. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:48:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:48:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] New: Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task 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=227091 Summary: Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp.src.rpm Description: ObjectWeb Ant task Javadoc for objectweb-anttask. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:48:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:48:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227092] New: Review Request: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser 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=227092 Summary: Review Request: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/piccolo-1.04-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/piccolo-1.04-2jpp.src.rpm Description: Piccolo is a small, extremely fast XML parser for Java. It implements the SAX 1, SAX 2.0.1, and JAXP 1.1 (SAX parsing only) interfaces as a non-validating parser and attempts to detect all XML well-formedness errors. Javadoc for piccolo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:49:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:49:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226022] Merge Review: libgpod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021749.l12Hn4Ib027863@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libgpod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226022 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-02 12:49 EST ------- I'll review this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:49:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:49:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227093] New: Review Request: picocontainer-1.2-2jpp - Dependency-injection container 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=227093 Summary: Review Request: picocontainer-1.2-2jpp - Dependency- injection container Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/picocontainer-1.2-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/picocontainer-1.2-2jpp.src.rpm Description: PicoContainer is a lightweight and highly embeddable container for components that honour Dependency Injection. Javadoc for picocontainer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:49:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:49:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227094] New: Review Request: plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator 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=227094 Summary: Review Request: plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-ant-factory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:49:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227095] New: Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server 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=227095 Summary: Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-appserver. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:50:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:50:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227096] New: Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component 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=227096 Summary: Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-archiver. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:50:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:50:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227098] New: Review Request: plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator 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=227098 Summary: Review Request: plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-bsh-factory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:50:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:50:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227099] New: Review Request: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator 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=227099 Summary: Review Request: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-cdc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:51:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:51:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227100] New: Review Request: plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp - Plexus Compiler 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=227100 Summary: Review Request: plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp - Plexus Compiler Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp.src.rpm Description: Plexus Compiler components. Javadoc for plexus-compiler. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:51:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:51:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227101] New: Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container 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=227101 Summary: Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-container-default. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:52:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:52:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227102] New: Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component 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=227102 Summary: Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-i18n. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:52:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:52:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227103] New: Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component 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=227103 Summary: Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-interactivity. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:53:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:53:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227104] New: Review Request: plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2jpp - Plexus Maven plugin 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=227104 Summary: Review Request: plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2jpp - Plexus Maven plugin Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-maven-plugin. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:53:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:53:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227105] New: Review Request: plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.a9.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator 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=227105 Summary: Review Request: plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.a9.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.a9.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.a9.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-runtime-builder. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:53:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:53:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227106] New: Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common 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=227106 Summary: Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-utils. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:54:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:54:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227107] New: Review Request: plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp - Plexus Velocity Component 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=227107 Summary: Review Request: plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp - Plexus Velocity Component Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-velocity. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:54:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:54:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227108] New: Review Request: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component 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=227108 Summary: Review Request: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-xmlrpc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:55:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:55:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227109] New: Review Request: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems 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=227109 Summary: Review Request: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/pmd-3.6-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/pmd-3.6-1jpp.src.rpm Description: PMD scans Java source code and looks for potential problems like: + Unused local variables + Empty catch blocks + Unused parameters + Empty 'if' statements + Duplicate import statements + Unused private methods + Classes which could be Singletons + Short/long variable and method names PMD has plugins for JDeveloper, JEdit, JBuilder, NetBeans/Sun ONE Studio, IntelliJ IDEA, TextPad, Maven, Ant, Eclipse, Gel, and Emacs. Documentation for pmd. Javadoc for pmd. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:55:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:55:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227110] New: Review Request: proxytoys-0.2.1-1jpp - ProxyToys 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=227110 Summary: Review Request: proxytoys-0.2.1-1jpp - ProxyToys Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/proxytoys-0.2.1-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/proxytoys-0.2.1-1jpp.src.rpm Description: ProxyToys. Javadoc for proxytoys. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:56:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:56:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227111] New: Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources 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=227111 Summary: Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/qdox-1.5-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/qdox-1.5-2jpp.src.rpm Description: QDox is a high speed, small footprint parser for extracting class/interface/method definitions from source files complete with JavaDoc @tags. It is designed to be used by active code generators or documentation tools. Javadoc for qdox. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:56:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:56:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227112] New: Review Request: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API 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=227112 Summary: Review Request: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm Description: RELAX NG Datatype API Javadoc for relaxngDatatype. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:57:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:57:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227113] New: Review Request: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java 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=227113 Summary: Review Request: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp.src.rpm Description: Rhino is an open-source implementation of JavaScript written entirely in Java. It is typically embedded into Java applications to provide scripting to end users. Examples for rhino. Documentation for rhino. Javadoc for rhino. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:57:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:57:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227114] New: Review Request: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor 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=227114 Summary: Review Request: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/saxon-6.5.3-4jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/saxon-6.5.3-4jpp.src.rpm Description: The SAXON package is a collection of tools for processing XML documents. The main components are: - An XSLT processor, which implements the Version 1.0 XSLT and XPath Recommendations from the World Wide Web Consortium, found at http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xslt-19991116 and http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116 with a number of powerful extensions. This version of Saxon also includes many of the new features defined in the XSLT 1.1 working draft, but for conformance and portability reasons these are not available if the stylesheet header specifies version="1.0". - A Java library, which supports a similar processing model to XSL, but allows full programming capability, which you need if you want to perform complex processing of the data or to access external services such as a relational database. So you can use SAXON with any SAX-compliant XML parser by writing XSLT stylesheets, by writing Java applications, or by any combination of the two. A slightly improved version of the AElfred Java XML parser from Microstar. Manual for saxon. Javadoc for saxon. Demonstrations and samples for saxon. FOP support for saxon. JDOM support for saxon. Utility scripts for saxon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:57:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:57:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227115] New: Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation 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=227115 Summary: Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm Description: Release 8.6 represents an important milestone in Saxonica's progressive implementation of the XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 specifications. Saxon 8.6 is aligned with the W3C Candidate Recommendation published on 3 November 2005. It is a complete and conformant implementation, providing all the mandatory features of those specifications and nearly all the optional features. Saxon is available in two versions. Saxon-B is a non-schema-aware processor, and is available as an open-source product, free of charge, from SourceForge. It is designed to conform to the basic conformance level of XSLT 2.0, and the equivalent level of functionality in XQuery 1.0. Saxon-SA is the schema-aware version of the package, and is available as a commercially supported product from Saxonica Limited. This package provides the Basic XSLT 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 processor. Includes the command line interfaces and the JAVA APIs; also includes a standalone XPath API that doesn't depend on JAXP 1.3. Manual for saxon8. Javadoc for saxon8. Demonstrations and samples for saxon8. Supports XSLT extensions for accessing and updating a relational database from within a stylesheet. Provides additional classes enabling Saxon to be used with JDOM trees. Supports using a JDOM document as the input or output of transformations and queries. Requires jdom.jar on the classpath. Provides additional classes enabling Saxon to be used with the DOM Document Object Model. Supports using a DOM as the input or output of transformations and queries, and calling extension functions that use DOM interfaces to access a Saxon tree structure. Requires DOM level 3 (dom.jar, part of JAXP 1.3) to be on the classpath, if not running under JDK 1.5. Provides additional classes enabling Saxon to be used with XOM trees. Supports using a XOM document as the input or output of transformations and queries. Requires xom.jar on the classpath. Provides support for the JAXP 1.3 XPath API. Requires the JAXP 1.3 version of jaxp-api.jar on the classpath, if not running under JDK 1.5. Utility scripts for saxon8. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:58:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:58:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227116] New: Review Request: servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp - Java servlet and JSP implementation classes 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=227116 Summary: Review Request: servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp - Java servlet and JSP implementation classes Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.src.rpm Description: This subproject contains the source code for the implementation classes of the Java Servlet and JSP APIs (packages javax.servlet). Javadoc generated Documentation for servletapi4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:58:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:58:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227117] New: Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish 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=227117 Summary: Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp.src.rpm Description: TagSoup is a SAX-compliant parser written in Java that, instead of parsing well-formed or valid XML, parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish, though quite often far from short. TagSoup is designed for people who have to process this stuff using some semblance of a rational application design. By providing a SAX interface, it allows standard XML tools to be applied to even the worst HTML. Javadoc for tagsoup. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:59:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:59:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227118] New: Review Request: tanukiwrapper-3.2.3-1jpp - Java Service Wrapper 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=227118 Summary: Review Request: tanukiwrapper-3.2.3-1jpp - Java Service Wrapper Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/tanukiwrapper-3.2.3-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/tanukiwrapper-3.2.3-1jpp.src.rpm Description: The Java Service Wrapper is an application which has evolved out of a desire to solve a number of problems common to many Java applications: - Run as a Windows Service or Unix Daemon - Application Reliability - Standard, Out of the Box Scripting - On Demand Restarts - Flexible Configuration - Ease Application Installations - Logging Javadoc for tanukiwrapper. Documents for tanukiwrapper. This package provides debug information for package tanukiwrapper. Debug information is useful when developing applications that use this package or when debugging this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:59:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:59:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227119] New: Review Request: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB 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=227119 Summary: Review Request: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp.src.rpm Description: A Java/XML binding compiler takes as input a schema description (in most cases an XML schema, but it may be a DTD, a RelaxNG schema, a Java class inspected via reflection, or a database schema). The output is a set of Java classes: * A Java bean class matching the schema description. (If the schema was obtained via Java reflection, the original Java bean class.) * Read a conforming XML document and convert it into the equivalent Java bean. * Vice versa, marshal the Java bean back into the original XML document. Javadoc for ws-jaxme. Documents for ws-jaxme. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 17:59:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:59:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227120] New: Review Request: ws-scout-1.0-4jpp - Apache Scout Implementation of JSR 93 (JAXR) 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=227120 Summary: Review Request: ws-scout-1.0-4jpp - Apache Scout Implementation of JSR 93 (JAXR) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/ws-scout-1.0-4jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/ws-scout-1.0-4jpp.src.rpm Description: Apache Scout is an implementation of the JSR 93 (JAXR). Javadoc for ws-scout. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:00:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:00:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227121] New: Review Request: wstx-2.9.3-1jpp - Woodstox Stax Implementation 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=227121 Summary: Review Request: wstx-2.9.3-1jpp - Woodstox Stax Implementation Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/wstx-2.9.3-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/wstx-2.9.3-1jpp.src.rpm Description: Woodstox is a high-performance validating namespace-aware StAX-compliant (JSR-173) Open Source XML-processor written in Java. XML processor means that it handles both input (== parsing) and output (== writing, serialization)), as well as supporting tasks such as validation. J2ME libraries for wstx. Javadoc for wstx. Documents for wstx. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:00:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:00:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227122] New: Review Request: xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp - XML-Java binding tool 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=227122 Summary: Review Request: xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp - XML-Java binding tool Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp.src.rpm Description: XMLBeans is a tool that allows you to access the full power of XML in a Java friendly way. It is an XML-Java binding tool. The idea is that you can take advantage the richness and features of XML and XML Schema and have these features mapped as naturally as possible to the equivalent Java language and typing constructs. XMLBeans uses XML Schema to compile Java interfaces and classes that you can then use to access and modify XML instance data. Using XMLBeans is similar to using any other Java interface/class, you will see things like getFoo or setFoo just as you would expect when working with Java. While a major use of XMLBeans is to access your XML instance data with strongly typed Java classes there are also API's that allow you access to the full XML infoset (XMLBeans keeps full XML Infoset fidelity) as well as to allow you to reflect into the XML schema itself through an XML Schema Object model. Javadoc for xmlbeans. Documents for xmlbeans. Maven plugin for xmlbeans. Scripts for xmlbeans. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:01:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:01:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] New: Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java 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=227123 Summary: Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp.src.rpm Description: The API interfaces are what driver developers must implement when creating a new driver and are the interfaces that applications are developed against. Along with the interfaces a concrete DriverManager implementation is also provides. The reference implementation provides a very simple file system based implementation of the XML:DB API. This provides what is basically a very simple native XML database that uses directories to represent collections and just stores the XML in files. The driver development kit provides a set of base classes that can be extended to simplify and speed the development of XML:DB API drivers. These classes are used to provide the basis for the reference implementation and therefore a simple example of how a driver can be implemented. Using the SDK classes significantly reduces the amount of code that must be written to create a new driver. Along with the SDK base classes the SDK also contains a set of jUnit test cases that can be used to help validate the driver while it is being developed. The test cases are still in development but there are enough tests currently to be useful. XMLDB common Package, originally Infozone Tools Javadoc for xmldb-api. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:01:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:01:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227124] New: Review Request: xmlrpc-2.0.1-3jpp - Java XML-RPC implementation 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=227124 Summary: Review Request: xmlrpc-2.0.1-3jpp - Java XML-RPC implementation Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/xmlrpc-2.0.1-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/xmlrpc-2.0.1-3jpp.src.rpm Description: Apache XML-RPC is a Java implementation of XML-RPC, a popular protocol that uses XML over HTTP to implement remote procedure calls. Apache XML-RPC was previously known as Helma XML-RPC. If you have code using the Helma library, all you should have to do is change the import statements in your code from helma.xmlrpc.* to org.apache.xmlrpc.*. Javadoc for xmlrpc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:01:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:01:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227125] New: Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser 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=227125 Summary: Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/xom-1.0-3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/xom-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm Description: XOM is a new XML object model. It is an open source (LGPL), tree-based API for processing XML with Java that strives for correctness, simplicity, and performance, in that order. XOM is designed to be easy to learn and easy to use. It works very straight-forwardly, and has a very shallow learning curve. Assuming you're already familiar with XML, you should be able to get up and running with XOM very quickly. Javadoc for xom. Samples for xom. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:02:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:02:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227126] New: Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser 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=227126 Summary: Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.src.rpm Description: XML Pull Parser 2 (XPP2) is a simple and fast incremental XML parser. NOTE: XPP2 is no longer developed and is on maintenance mode. All active developement concentrates on its successor XPP3/MXP1 Javadoc for xpp2. Manual for xpp2. Samples for xpp2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:02:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] New: Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser 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=227127 Summary: Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp.src.rpm Description: Xml Pull Parser 3rd Edition (XPP3) MXP1 is a new XmlPull parsing engine that is based on ideas from XPP and in particular XPP2 but completely revised and rewritten to take best advantage of latest JIT JVMs such as Hotspot in JDK 1.4. Minimal XML pull parser implementation. Javadoc for xpp3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:02:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:02:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227128] New: Review Request: xstream-1.1.3-1jpp - XML serialization library 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=227128 Summary: Review Request: xstream-1.1.3-1jpp - XML serialization library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/xstream-1.1.3-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/xstream-1.1.3-1jpp.src.rpm Description: XStream is a simple library to serialize objects to XML and back again. A high level facade is supplied that simplifies common use cases. Custom objects can be serialized without need for specifying mappings. Speed and low memory footprint are a crucial part of the design, making it suitable for large object graphs or systems with high message throughput. No information is duplicated that can be obtained via reflection. This results in XML that is easier to read for humans and more compact than native Java serialization. XStream serializes internal fields, including private and final. Supports non-public and inner classes. Classes are not required to have default constructor. Duplicate references encountered in the object-model will be maintained. Supports circular references. By implementing an interface, XStream can serialize directly to/from any tree structure (not just XML). Strategies can be registered allowing customization of how particular types are represented as XML. When an exception occurs due to malformed XML, detailed diagnostics are provided to help isolate and fix the problem. Javadoc for xstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:05:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:05:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021805.l12I5MsD029627@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|chris.stone at gmail.com |j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-02 13:05 EST ------- ==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ==== - rpmlint output clean - package named according to package naming guidelines - spec file name matches %{name} - package meets packaging guidelines - package licensed with open source compatible license - license tag matches actual license X license file included in %doc - spec written in American english - spec file is legible - sources match upstream 44023431a37932ab44a9cf0be9230714 Duel3_20060225_src.zip 0aa9fa786257d6f1d6dd79d2bf591070 Duel3_20060225_bin.zip - successfully compiles and builds on FC-6 x86_64 - all build dependencies listed in BR - no locales - no shared libraries - not relocatable - package owns all directories it creates X package does not bring in all Requires for dirs it does not own - no duplicates in %files - file permissions set properly - contains proper %clean section - macro usage consistent - package contains code - no large documentation - %doc does not affect runtime - no header files or static libs - no pkgconfig files - no library files with suffix - no need for devel subpackage - no libtool archives - contains proper desktop file - does not own files or directories owned by other packages ==== MUST FIX ==== - Requires icon cache package to pull in icon dir - Include artwork license in %doc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:07:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:07:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215569] Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021807.l12I7LIw029771@bugzilla.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: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215569 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-02 13:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #35) > > ./seom.pc.in /usr lib > > make: *** [seom.pc] Error 1 > > you have to either build seom from an official tarball > (http://dbservice.com/ftpdir/tom/seom/tarballs/) or Umm?? This is the first time I heard that there is a official _seperated_ tarball of seom!! Then another review request for seom should be submitted, should make this review request blocked by the seom review request, and the review request for seom should be reviewed first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:37:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:37:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021837.l12IbXnr031339@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From matt at rudeserver.com 2007-02-02 13:37 EST ------- Yes, this is my first review. I failed to set the FE-NEEDSPONSOR block, my apologies. Should I add it now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 18:59:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:59:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226194] Merge Review: NetworkManager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021859.l12IxaAU032658@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: NetworkManager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226194 Bug 226194 depends on bug 203632, which changed state. Bug 203632 Summary: libnm-util.so should be in -devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203632 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 19:15:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021915.l12JFx0J001402@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pkgconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-02 14:15 EST ------- We are not going to start adding -devel subpackages to development tool, I assume. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 19:25:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:25:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226299] Merge Review: pkgconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021925.l12JP9w8002184@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pkgconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226299 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-02 14:25 EST ------- pkgconfig-0.21-4.fc7 addresses the concerns except for the automake dependency -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 19:25:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:25:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021925.l12JPuuU002241@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bug-buddy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-02 14:25 EST ------- it uses %makeinstall . I'm going to change it to use make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 19:35:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:35:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021935.l12JZbvg003137@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bug-buddy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-02 14:35 EST ------- there is some cruft: ## http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89356 perl -pi -e 's/Categories=Application;Development$/Categories=Application;Development;/' $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/* that should just get pulled out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 19:47:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:47:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021947.l12JlWO6003889@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bug-buddy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-02 14:47 EST ------- I'm going to remove --vendor gnome from the desktop-file-install call. It doesn't serve any useful purpose and is only there because historically it's been a required command-line argument. I've just removed that requirement upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 19:50:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:50:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226022] Merge Review: libgpod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021950.l12JoONP004009@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libgpod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226022 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |alexl at redhat.com CC| |tmz at pobox.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-02 14:50 EST ------- MUST items verified * rpmlint runs without errors on the srpm (just a minor warning, output below) * Adheres to naming guidelines * Specfile name matches package name * Meets packaging guidelines (except for %makeinstall usage, see below) * License meets open-source requirements * License included in %doc * License field matches the upstream license * Specfile is in American English * Specfile is legible * Source matches upstream (sha1: b2aece62a206a5b703c50e6625b173217f1d67a6) * Builds, installs, and works (tested on FC6, i386) * Owns directories that it creates * Does not own files or directories of other packages * File list has no duplicates * File perms are sane * Specfile includes %clean section * Macros used consistently * Package contains code or permissible content * Headers are in -devel subpackage * Devel package properly requires pkgconfig and the base libgpod package * Libtool archives and static archives are excluded SHOULD items verified * Builds in mock against fedora-{5,6,development}-i386-core targets * Scriplets are sane * Package functions correctly (tested on FC6) $ rpmlint libgpod-0.4.2-1.fc7.src.rpm W: libgpod setup-not-quiet This warning is very minor and easily silenced with the addition of -q to %setup. It's not a blocker as far as I know. Another very a minor point, the preferred value for the BuildRoot tag is %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) This is not a blocker. The one thing that should be fixed is to change %makeinstall to %{__make} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install as per the packaging guidelines. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 19:54:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:54:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226022] Merge Review: libgpod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021954.l12Js6Nq004241@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libgpod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226022 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-02 14:53 EST ------- It should probably also be noted here for future reference that this package does not contain the python module that is shipped with libgpod. This is only due to the requirement of that module on the python-eyed3 package which is only available in Extras. Once the merge is completed and libgpod can safely require python-eyed3, then the python-gpod package from extras should be rolled into this package. I'd also like to volunteer to co-maintain this package. I have upstream commit privileges* and follow the development closely. I'm also the maintainer of the python-gpod package currently in Extras. * not because I'm much of a coder, but because I've helped with automake and documentation issues -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 19:58:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702021958.l12Jw0a3004545@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bug-buddy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-02 14:57 EST ------- getting rid of --add-category X-Red-Hat-Extra . We don't use that anymore afaik. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 20:15:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:15:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225681] Merge Review: desktop-file-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702022015.l12KFrGg006230@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-file-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225681 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-02 15:15 EST ------- it's a little weird we BuildRequires: emacs. I'm not sure why we do that. We should probably minimally make it a Requires: and probably move the .el file to a subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 20:19:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:19:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225681] Merge Review: desktop-file-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702022019.l12KJ0aJ006440@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-file-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225681 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-02 15:18 EST ------- well, it's only one file, let's not bother making the subpackage for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 20:19:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:19:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225681] Merge Review: desktop-file-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702022019.l12KJrZ9006528@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-file-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225681 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-02 15:19 EST ------- (and drop the Requires: entirely) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 20:21:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:21:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225681] Merge Review: desktop-file-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702022021.l12KLieP006621@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-file-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225681 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-02 15:21 EST ------- there's some cruft: # We don't want the vfs module yet /bin/rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libmenu* /bin/rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/menu-modules.conf I have no idea what that's about, but I'm dropping it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 20:22:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225681] Merge Review: desktop-file-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702022022.l12KMvR8006747@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-file-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225681 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-02 15:22 EST ------- We don't install any .desktop files from desktop-file-utils, so it doesn't make sense to call update-desktop-database from it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 20:51:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:51:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225681] Merge Review: desktop-file-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702022051.l12KpaKf008763@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-file-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225681 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-02 15:51 EST ------- So it looks like we have to keep the emacs buildrequires to generate the .elc file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 20:52:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:52:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702022052.l12KqEfZ008915@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |php-pear ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-02 15:52 EST ------- Joe: please let me know if you plan to upgrade to 1.5.0 before I do a formal review. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 21:37:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702022137.l12Lb5bI012339@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-02 16:37 EST ------- I've re-packaged and renamed the SRPM with the new versio of the source code. The SRPM is here: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/fc6/dxpc-3.9.1-0.1.b1.fc6.src.rpm The new spec file is here: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/fc6/dxpc.spec The version is now 3.9.1. The release is now 0.1.b1%{?dist}. I have updated the %changelog section thi time as well. ;-) Also, I have been trying to upload the SRPM into CVS, and I keep getting the following output: euler_1125% ./common/cvs-import.sh ~/rpm_build/SRPMS/dxpc-3.9.1-0.1.b1.fc6.src.rpm Checking out the modules file... Module 'dxpc' already exists... Checking out module: 'dxpc' Unpacking source package: dxpc-3.9.1-0.1.b1.fc6.src.rpm... R dead.package A dxpc-3.9.0-dxpcssh.patch A dxpc-3.9.0-mandir.patch L dxpc-3.9.1b1.tgz A dxpc.spec make: *** No rule to make target `upload'. Stop. ERROR: Uploading the source tarballs failed! Can someone point me in the right direction to fix this? Do I need to cat the Makefile.common onto the end of the Makefile in the common directory that I just checked out? Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 22:07:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:07:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] New: Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) 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=227181 Summary: Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mr.ecik at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/rpm/sonata/sonata.spec SRPM URL: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/rpm/sonata/sonata-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: Sonata is a lightweight GTK+ music client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD). It aims to be efficient (no toolbar, main menu, or statusbar), user-friendly, and clean. Features: - Expanded and collapsed views - Automatic remote or local album art - Automatic fetching of lyrics - Playlist and stream support - Support for editing tags - System tray icon with tooltip - Optional popup notification - Library searching by artist, song, etc. - Keyboard friendly - Support for multimedia keys - Commandline control -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 22:25:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:25:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702022225.l12MPdGV015214@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-02 17:25 EST ------- Nope. Try again. It should work now. dxpc package is a special case in that it had been marked as a "dead.package" in CVS some time before FC6. Such packages must be resurrected before cvs-import.sh will work again. FYI: After successful import to "devel", the FC-6 branch for dxpc doesn't exist and would need to be requested in the Wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 2 23:50:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:50:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702022350.l12NorNp017878@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-02 18:50 EST ------- Thanks. I was able to get the import to work correctly after you did that. (There were some scary-looking tracebacks in there as well.) I just edited the page you mentioned with the request for the new braches. Since there is a dxpc package in FC5, I asked for both FC-5 and FC-6 branches. Also, upstream sent word that 64-bit testing has gone well. Neal(from comment #10), would you be able to test the new software out as well? Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 01:34:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227190] New: Review Request: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID 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=227190 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/php-pear-Auth-OpenID.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/php-pear-Auth-OpenID-1.2.1-1.at.src.rpm Description: An implementation of the OpenID single sign-on authentication protocol. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 01:34:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:34:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227191] New: Review Request: php-pear-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis 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=227191 Summary: Review Request: php-pear-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/php-pear-Services-Yadis.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/php-pear-Services-Yadis-1.0.2-2.at.src.rpm Description: An implementation of the Yadis service discovery protocol. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 01:39:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218581] Review Request: mediawiki-openid - The OpenID extension for MediaWiki In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702030139.l131drHX020125@bugzilla.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: mediawiki-openid - The OpenID extension for MediaWiki https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218581 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |227190, 227191 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 01:39:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227190] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702030139.l131dtfX020137@bugzilla.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: php-pear-Auth-OpenID - PHP OpenID https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227190 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |218581 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 01:39:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:39:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227191] Review Request: php-pear-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702030139.l131dsaS020133@bugzilla.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: php-pear-Services-Yadis - PHP Yadis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227191 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |218581 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 01:58:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:58:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220284] Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702030158.l131w7rW020511@bugzilla.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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284 ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-02 20:58 EST ------- Could you please import this package? Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 03:29:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 22:29:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222589] Review Request: dolphin - A file manager for KDE focusing on usability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702030329.l133TuwO023635@bugzilla.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: dolphin - A file manager for KDE focusing on usability https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222589 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-02 22:29 EST ------- Because that was an incomplete german locale, whereas my dolphin package is already shipping a complete german locale. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 10:27:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 05:27:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226892] Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031027.l13ARSpl007345@bugzilla.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: kpowersave - kde power control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226892 ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-03 05:27 EST ------- Needs work: * Please remove /usr/lib/libkdeinit_kpowersave.la, it should be useless (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries). /usr/lib/kde3/kpowersave.la is probably needed however, please keep it. * As kpowersave ships icons in the hicolor directory, it should have "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme" https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-September/msg00282.html Everything else looks OK, good job. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 10:31:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 05:31:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031031.l13AVmEJ007559@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-03 05:31 EST ------- * FC-5 branch exists already. You can update it yourself within CVS. ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/UsingCvsFaq ) * The tracebacks are due to CVS ACL and mail-notification changes from Jan 31st. Packages, which are still orphaned, apparently give such a traceback. * Editing owners/owners.list in CVS is no longer possible since Jan 31st: - owners.list and owners.epel.list are now locked down. To request changes, please send mail to cvsadmin-members at fedoraproject.org. (This may be replaced with the wiki or the ticketing system really fast.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 10:50:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 05:50:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031050.l13Ao0TW008794@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-03 05:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > ==== MUST FIX ==== > - Requires icon cache package to pull in icon dir Done > - Include artwork license in %doc I assume you mean the music license as the rest of the artwork is under the same license as the source -> done. New version here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/duel3.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/duel3-0.1-0.2.20060225.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 11:06:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 06:06:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031106.l13B6TcQ010212@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-03 06:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > Well, for -2.1: > > * License: > I doubt that this is licensed under GPL. > All texts which include explicit license terms > refer to the same sentences, however, I just > don't know how this license is called... > Please check: > ./analyzer/anXhelper.c for example. > (Note: license for files created by autotools > should be ignored). > under scripts/irsim.spec.in you will see GPL. However, I've asked upstream for more clarity on this. Here is what he answered: ------------- The only copyright notices that appear are in the C code itself. For a typical example (they're all the same as far as I saw): /base/rsim.c has the following copyright notice: ********************************************************************* * Copyright (C) 1988, 1990 Stanford University. * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this * * software and its documentation for any purpose and without * * fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright * * notice appear in all copies. Stanford University * * makes no representations about the suitability of this * * software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" without * * express or implied warranty. Export of this software outside * * of the United States of America may require an export license. * ********************************************************************* >From my meager understanding of software copyright law, the fact that the Stanford copyright is less restrictive than GPL means that the GPL license may be applied to the package without any problem. I can add the standard GPL copyright notice to the distribution, if you would like. Regards, Tim ------ So eventually, I asked him to add the GPL notice to the package. > * Some documentation > I wonder if the 3 documentation > ----------------------------------------- > /usr/lib/irsim/doc/irsim-analyzer.doc > /usr/lib/irsim/doc/irsim.doc > /usr/lib/irsim/doc/netchange.doc > ----------------------------------------- > are really needed because: > * they are the same as man pages installed. > * it seems that they are not used at runtime. > You are right about it, I'll remove them. > ? Would you give me some examples so that > I can check if this program works well? > > ? I just wonder if the following compilation flag is > proper: > --------------------------------- > DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"magic-hackers at csl.cornell.edu\" > --------------------------------- > Should this be your mail address? > I'll point it to http://bugzilla.redhat.com > ? By the way, what are the files under other/ > directory? Generally in this type of packages, they are contributed codes that - we don't know their license - they are not currently maintained - we don't know about their accuracy/precision on their methods -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 12:04:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 07:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227198] New: Review Request: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library 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=227198 Summary: Review Request: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/jpgalleg.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/jpgalleg-2.5-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: jpgalleg is a jpeg library for use with the Allegro game library. It allows using jpeg's as Allegro bitmaps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 12:06:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 07:06:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222960] Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031206.l13C609M012169@bugzilla.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: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222960 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-03 07:05 EST ------- Spec URL: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/xenman.spec SRPM URL: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/xenman-0.6-3.fc6.src.rpm Added Logfile as mentioned in xenman.conf file in /etc/ (in reply to comment #8) >Just create it in %install and simply add >%{_sysconfdir}/log/%{name} to %files. better place in, %{_localstatedir}/log/%{name} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 12:42:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 07:42:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031242.l13CgQXi013181@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 mr.ecik at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mr.ecik at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-03 07:42 EST ------- I'll attach a new spec file which fixes many things in this spec file, but its great feature is that it makes output file much smaller: 20M /repo/core/RPMS.core/aspell-pl-0.51-5.2.2.x86_64.rpm 2,3M /home/ecik/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/aspell-pl-6.0-1.20061121.x86_64.rpm This is done due to using of affix compression. I've also made some fixes to make this package fit for Extras. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 12:44:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 07:44:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031244.l13CiUem013332@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-03 07:44 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147271) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147271&action=view) New spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 12:54:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 07:54:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226229] Merge Review: pango In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031254.l13Cs3x2013933@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pango https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226229 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 07:54 EST ------- BLOCKER: MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. The license is actually more complicated than the LGPL that the spec file currently says. See bug 224135. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 13:06:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 08:06:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031306.l13D6eT9014421@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From ndbecker2 at gmail.com 2007-02-03 08:06 EST ------- Seems to be working OK now on fc6 x86_64. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 13:25:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 08:25:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031325.l13DPLVH014943@bugzilla.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: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net 2007-02-03 08:25 EST ------- Hey, no problem, I've been busy, too. Review will follow soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 13:36:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 08:36:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031336.l13Da5Ac015189@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 08:36 EST ------- Random notes: * rpmlint output: W: bitmap-fonts invalid-license distributable W: bitmap-fonts no-url-tag W: bitmap-fonts-cjk invalid-license distributable W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-url-tag W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-documentation * It seems that the Lucida fonts are not free software. See the LU_LEGALNOTICE in the package. * As this is actually three different set of fonts, the version (0.3) is quite arbitrary. Also, at least ucs-fonts has released a newer version in 2006, while the version in bitmap-fonts is from 2003. * Release is complicated (5.1.1) for no real reason. Should be changed to integer value (6?). * BuildRoot should be changed to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * In the "cjk" subpackage summary, CJK should be spelled with capital letters. * "Prereq" should be replaced by "Requires" (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#tags) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 13:41:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 08:41:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031341.l13DfRGh015354@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |majain at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 08:41 EST ------- Change fedora-review to negative and assign to owner for fixing them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 13:56:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 08:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225618] Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031356.l13DuxZW016171@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 08:56 EST ------- Is this package still necessary? I mean, doesn't dejavu-lgc-fonts deprecate this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 14:08:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:08:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031408.l13E8vjk017033@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-03 09:08 EST ------- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/kalgebra.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/kalgebra-0.5-3.src.rpm Fix presence in gnome menu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 14:12:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:12:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226517] Merge Review: urw-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031412.l13ECHH6017254@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: urw-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226517 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |than at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 09:12 EST ------- Random notes: * As upstream version is 1.0.7pre40, I believe EVR should be changed to 1:1.0.7-0.1.pre40 * Summary ends with a period. It shouldn't. * Remove the comma after "Free" in the description field. * Should not mention the copyright holder in the License field. * Change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Perhaps the individual fonts that are listed as Source1 to Source8 could be made into a tarball, which also makes the SPEC file (%install section) more readable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 14:14:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:14:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031414.l13EE1K6017378@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 ------- Additional Comments From gajownik at gmail.com 2007-02-03 09:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Created an attachment (id=147271) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147271&action=view) [edit] > New spec file Uhmm... you can't remove epoch tag now, because it will break update path from FC6 to F7. BTW It's not a blocker but it would be nicer to change order of tags to be compatible with default Fedora's spec template (/etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-minimal.spec from rpmdevtools package) :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:13:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031513.l13FDds6018904@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-03 10:13 EST ------- Not necessary - I am going to sponsor you. Please proceed with step 10 as described on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:21:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225247] Merge Review: anacron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031521.l13FLgwu019102@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jspaleta at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:24:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224245] Merge Review: squirrelmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031524.l13FODjY019173@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: squirrelmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224245 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: squirrelmail|Merge Review: squirrelmail ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 10:23 EST ------- Changed Summary for the Big Merge -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:25:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:25:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031525.l13FP32F019243@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 10:24 EST ------- I will review this package. Please do address the 203536 bug about splitting out a -devel package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:31:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:31:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226571] Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031531.l13FVAiN019401@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226571 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:32:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:32:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226533] Merge Review: vsftpd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031532.l13FW5NK019438@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vsftpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226533 jpmahowald at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jpmahowald at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:32:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:32:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225847] Merge Review: gnupg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031532.l13FWtMe019497@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnupg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225847 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |nalin at redhat.com CC| |tmz at pobox.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-03 10:32 EST ------- Hi Nalin. Here's a review for gnupg. MUST items verified * Adheres to naming guidelines * Specfile name matches package name * Meets packaging guidelines (see below for comment on %{_libexecdir} usage * License meets open-source requirements * License included in %doc * License field matches the upstream license * Specfile is in American English * Specfile is legible * Source matches upstream (sha1: 9cbbef5c94f793867ff3ae4941816962311a0563) * Builds, installs, and works (tested on FC6, i386) * Owns directories that it creates * Does not own files or directories of other packages * File list has no duplicates * File perms are sane * Specfile includes %clean section * Macros used consistently * Package contains code or permissible content SHOULD items verified * Builds in mock against fedora-{5,6}-i386-core targets * Package functions correctly (tested on FC6, i386) NEEDSWORK items * rpmlint produces several warnings and errors on the srpm $ rpmlint gnupg-1.4.6-3.src.rpm W: gnupg summary-ended-with-dot A GNU utility for secure communication and data storage. E: gnupg tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnupg non-utf8-spec-file gnupg.spec W: gnupg buildprereq-use autoconf, automake, bzip2-devel, expect, ncurses-devel W: gnupg buildprereq-use openldap-devel, readline-devel, zlib-devel, gettext-devel W: gnupg buildprereq-use curl-devel W: gnupg buildprereq-use libusb-devel W: gnupg unversioned-explicit-provides gpg W: gnupg unversioned-explicit-provides openpgp W: gnupg prereq-use /sbin/install-info W: gnupg make-check-outside-check-section make check E: gnupg use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR W: gnupg mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 73, tab: line 50) All except the unversioned-explicit-provides on the virtual gpg and openpgp packages should be corrected. The binary rpm produces one warning: $ rpmlint gnupg-1.4.6-4.fc6-results/gnupg-1.4.6-4.fc6.i386.rpm W: gnupg file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/gpg.ru.1.gz I don't know Russian so I couldn't verify if iconv would properly converted the man page so I left it alone. * Scriplets are sane The scriptlets to install info pages could be simplified somewhat and made more consistent with the examples in Packaging/ScriptletSnippets Comments/Questions/Notes There are a number of unneeded configure flags to enable zlib, bzip, readline, and curl. These are all enabled by default in the current gnupg so they can be removed. Why is %{_libdir} used for %{_libexecdir}? Packaging/Guidelines allow the use of this dir and it is what upstream does by default. %{_libdir}/gnupg is used for extensions, though none are currently shipped with this package (or by any others in Fedora AFAIK). The CFLAGS are set explicitly to prevent the binaries from having text relocations, as per BZ#145836 (in case anyone wonders about that). Another very a minor point, the preferred value for the BuildRoot tag is %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) This is not a blocker. I was unable to build this in mock for the development target due to expect having a broken dep on libtcl8.4.so at the moment. NEEDSWORK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:33:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225713] Merge Review: dvgrab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031533.l13FXXOT019522@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dvgrab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225713 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ed at eh3.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:37:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225847] Merge Review: gnupg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031537.l13Fb5cg019828@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnupg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225847 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-03 10:37 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147274) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147274&action=view) patch correcting small issues mentioned above Here's a patch to correct the (relatively minor) issues mentioned above. Feel free to ditch my changelog entry if you use any parts of the patch. I'll take the blame for things I break but I don't care about getting credit. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:37:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:37:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225671] Merge Review: curl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031537.l13Fb9kc019836@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:40:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:40:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225736] Merge Review: evince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031540.l13FeCMX020036@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: evince https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225736 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:42:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:42:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031542.l13FgFZU020162@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |twaugh at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 10:42 EST ------- Random notes: * URL field points to an empty page. Should perhaps be changed to http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/ghostscript.html * New upstream version (6.0) is available from http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/ghostscript/ * BuildRoot should be changed to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * The "Requires:" on ghostscript is probably unnecessary. * May need to add some requirements for post and postun scripts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:45:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226725] Review Request: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031545.l13FjusR020410@bugzilla.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: netgen - LVS netlist comparison tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226725 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-03 10:45 EST ------- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/netgen.spec SRPM http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/netgen-1.3.7-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:54:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:54:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031554.l13Fs77l020937@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dan at danny.cz Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-03 10:54 EST ------- few notes - %makeinstall should not be used (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002) - make check should go into %check - can parallel "make %{?_smp_mflags}" be used in %build? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:55:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:55:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225671] Merge Review: curl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031555.l13FtN6k021030@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:55:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:55:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226181] Merge Review: nano In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031555.l13FtUlV021053@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nano https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226181 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:56:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:56:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225618] Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031556.l13FuaEF021121@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-03 10:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Is this package still necessary? I mean, doesn't dejavu-lgc-fonts deprecate this? So it can live in Extras? :) Many people still use Bitstream Vera because DejaVu is poorly hinted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:58:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:58:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226229] Merge Review: pango In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031558.l13FwFO1021257@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pango https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226229 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-03 10:58 EST ------- So, "LGPL plus/minus exception"? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 15:58:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:58:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225713] Merge Review: dvgrab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031558.l13Fwe68021284@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dvgrab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225713 ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-03 10:58 EST ------- Hi folks, this package looks good wrt builds and rpmlint as shown at: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/dvgrab-2.1-2.fc7.src.rpm/result/ and the only minor nits I see in the spec file are: - not the preferred BuildRoot - the URL is no longer functional, please use: http://www.kinodv.org/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:00:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031600.l13G0PPD021402@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-03 11:00 EST ------- Which huge perl requirement? > rpm -q --requires aspell | grep perl /usr/bin/perl > -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:08:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:08:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225671] Merge Review: curl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031608.l13G8cq6021877@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |jnovy at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 11:08 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source curl-7.16.1.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list of curl-devel looks OK * File list of curl looks OK Needs work: * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) * rpmlint of curl-devel: rpmlint not clean: W: curl-devel summary-ended-with-dot Files needed for building applications with libcurl. * rpmlint of curl: rpmlint not clean: W: curl one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig. Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: pkgconfig (by libidn-devel) Notes: * Requires: openssl is not needed (Wiki: Extras/FullExceptionList) * in %package devel: Requires should probably be BuildRequires * Please use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:09:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:09:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225784] Merge Review: gdbm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031609.l13G9PFe021904@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gdbm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225784 redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-03 11:09 EST ------- The package should be updated, because the version Fedora ships seems to be outdated - or asked the other way round: Is this package really required? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:13:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:13:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225784] Merge Review: gdbm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031613.l13GD36V022097@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gdbm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225784 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-03 11:13 EST ------- Ah well, if cyrus-sasl, python and perl must depend to gdbm and gdbm-devel further on, I would take care of it - when allowed and possible of course. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:13:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:13:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225847] Merge Review: gnupg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031613.l13GDFa9022123@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnupg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225847 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nalin at redhat.com |tmz at pobox.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:13:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:13:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226022] Merge Review: libgpod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031613.l13GDlHG022156@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libgpod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226022 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|alexl at redhat.com |tmz at pobox.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:13:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:13:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031613.l13GDmKa022161@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:14:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:14:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226112] Merge Review: lv In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031614.l13GEifD022188@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lv https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226112 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:15:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:15:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031615.l13GFFij022219@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-03 11:15 EST ------- rpmlint on the srpm gives 4 warnings: W: gawk summary-ended-with-dot The GNU version of the awk text processing utility. W: gawk no-url-tag W: gawk make-check-outside-check-section make check (already mentioned in #1) W: gawk mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 86, tab: line 21) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:17:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:17:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226112] Merge Review: lv In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031617.l13GHGSM022315@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lv https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226112 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:20:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:20:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225736] Merge Review: evince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031620.l13GKLqH022512@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: evince https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225736 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |krh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 11:20 EST ------- Good: * Tarball matches upstream * Source URL is canonical * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * Desktop entry is fine * All directories are owned by this or other packages * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Post scriptlets conforms to packaging guidelines Minor: * You could use the disable-static flag with configure and not even bother with building the static libs. * Following rpmlint errors, which can be ignored: W: evince non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/evince-thumbnailer.schemas W: evince non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/evince.schemas +1 Approve -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:21:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:21:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226424] Merge Review: sound-juicer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031621.l13GLT8D022636@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sound-juicer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226424 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:21:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:21:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225770] Merge Review: freetype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031621.l13GLouZ022698@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: freetype https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225770 ------- Additional Comments From belegdol at gmail.com 2007-02-03 11:21 EST ------- IIRC freetype has some rpath issues. I don't know how easily they can be rid of. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:24:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:24:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225957] Merge Review: k3b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031624.l13GObVH022892@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: k3b https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ed at eh3.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:27:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:27:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031627.l13GRMZf023131@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |mmaslano at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 11:27 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source netkit-ftp-0.17.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: ftp summary-ended-with-dot The standard UNIX FTP (File Transfer Protocol) client. W: ftp no-url-tag W: ftp hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/%{name}-root Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * BuildRequires: gcc should not be included (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions) * BuildRequires: perl should not be included (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) * Your debuginfo package is empty. This is because binaries are installed with install -s * You're missing the URL tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:33:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:33:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226533] Merge Review: vsftpd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031633.l13GXHvu023321@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vsftpd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226533 jpmahowald at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jpmahowald at gmail.com |mbarabas at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com 2007-02-03 11:33 EST ------- Good: + License GPL + Follows naming guidelines + URL to source + %clean section + use of %doc macro Fix these and it's approved: - Use %{_var}, %{_sysconfdir}, and %{_sbindir} macros for %files and %install - Change Prereq to Requires. Also use Requires (post) and Requires (preun) style for chkconfig and service requirements. - use preferred BuildRoot of %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Also drop this stuff, unneeded: - "[ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && " in %clean - Requires: openssl, pam, libcap - usermod requirement, not used (commented out). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:33:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:33:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225038] Review Request: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text editor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031633.l13GXdNB023336@bugzilla.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: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225038 ------- Additional Comments From splinux25 at gmail.com 2007-02-03 11:33 EST ------- new changes - Fix desktop-file - Add post and postun section about gtk-update-icon-cache and mimeinfo - Fix files section New Spec : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/medit/medit.spec New SRPM : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/medit/medit-0.8.1-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:34:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:34:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031634.l13GYi0t023389@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-03 11:34 EST ------- Hans, please in the future follow the new guidelines outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags And ASSIGN this bug back to me when the ball is back in my court. I happened to catch this e-mail by chance since it wasnt ASSIGNED to me. I know this is a total pain, please comment on fedora-packaging if you do not like the new process (I did). Anyway, all must items fixed. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:35:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:35:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031635.l13GZX8i023429@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:37:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:37:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031637.l13GbcXo023555@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |twaugh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 11:37 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. See Below - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 0c8e0c31b08c14f7a7198ce967eb3281 a2ps-4.13b.tar.gz 0c8e0c31b08c14f7a7198ce967eb3281 a2ps-4.13b.tar.gz.1 fee1456d0e6e94af4fc5b5a1bb9687b7 i18n-fonts-0.1.tar.gz fee1456d0e6e94af4fc5b5a1bb9687b7 i18n-fonts-0.1.tar.gz See below - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. See below - .a/.la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. You use RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Would be good to stick to one style? 2. Is there a bug filed for the # Temp exclude on ppc64 as no emacs there right now ExcludeArch: ppc64 3. Should fix the buildroot to the standard. 4. Should the .a .la files be shipped? I suppose if there is a devel package, the .a might be usefull. 5. Our good friend rpmlint says: E: a2ps-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog Not sure where the non utf8 in the changelog is... do you see it? E: a2ps-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/a2ps-4.13/lib/basename.c E: a2ps-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/a2ps-4.13/lib/xmalloc.c Permissions wrong on those source files? W: a2ps summary-ended-with-dot Converts text and other types of files to PostScript(TM). Don't end summary with . E: a2ps tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: a2ps non-utf8-spec-file a2ps.spec Ah, the entire spec seems to be non utf8... W: a2ps prereq-use sed, coreutils W: a2ps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes a2ps-i18n W: a2ps unversioned-explicit-provides a2ps-i18n Perhaps should have versions where that was obsoleted and provide the next version? Of course that may have been so long ago that we can just remove these now. W: a2ps macro-in-%changelog files Thats in one of the very first changelogs from 1998: - narrower range of %files splats. W: a2ps mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 169, tab: line 211) Pick tabs or spaces for cleanness? E: a2ps file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/a2ps/afm/fonts.map This looks like it can be ignored. W: a2ps devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liba2ps.a Should be removed or moved to devel. W: a2ps file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/a2ps.info.gz Need to run iconv on the info file before install? W: a2ps devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/liba2ps.h Should be removed or moved to devel. W: a2ps dangerous-command-in-%post mv Could the ./make_fonts_map.sh be modified to handle the moving the new maps file in place logic? 6. Instead of 'exit 0' at the end of the scriptlets, perhaps add '|| :' to the scriplets? Although it's not clear if thats cleaner. 7. You are missing: Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info 8. I assume upstream is dead and you can't get any patches pushed up? 9. 3 outstanding bugs, might look at that, especially the hebrew support and splitting -devel package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:38:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:38:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227210] New: Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash 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=227210 Summary: Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: notting at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/gnucash-docs.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/ Description: docs from gnucash I split these off from gnucash as suggested in bug 222388. rpmlint seems clean, unless I botched it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:38:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:38:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225500] Review Request: cycle - Calendar program for women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031638.l13GcREM023631@bugzilla.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: cycle - Calendar program for women https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225500 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? | ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 11:38 EST ------- Resetting fedora-review flag to BLANK since this is not part of the Core-Extras Merge review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:39:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:39:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222388] Review Request: gnucash - personal finance management In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031639.l13GdIZP023702@bugzilla.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: gnucash - personal finance management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222388 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-03 11:39 EST ------- gnucash-docs split off, bug 227210. New gnucash spec & srpm uploaded to reflect this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:46:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:46:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225236] Merge Review: acl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031646.l13Gk7WG024158@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225236 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 11:46 EST ------- I'll review this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:47:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:47:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226112] Merge Review: lv In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031647.l13GlD2W024220@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lv https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226112 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp |tagoh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-03 11:47 EST ------- Good. * License - I don't see why the license should be written as "distributable", rather than GPL as license text says. Please change the license to GPL. * BuildPrereq -> BuildRequires APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:47:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:47:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031647.l13GltlO024273@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jpo at di.uminho.pt ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-03 11:47 EST ------- Pending issues from ticket https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211483 * Requirements and build requirement: comment #7 * Rpath problems: comments #9 and # 10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:51:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:51:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226571] Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031651.l13GpKN5024452@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226571 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fedora at leemhuis.info |sandmann at redhat.com CC| |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-03 11:51 EST ------- * The licensing of this package is odd afaics: * xcursorgen-1.0.1/COPYING -> I asked on #fedora-extras and jeremy replied: "reworded MIT. would be worth sending mail to the upstream and asking if it can be switched to the standard wording" * All the other contain a COPYING file that contains {{{ This is a stub file. This package has not yet had its complete licensing information compiled. Please see the individual source files for details on your rights to use and modify this software. Please submit updated COPYING files to the Xorg bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=xorg All licensing questions regarding this software should be directed at the Xorg mailing list: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg }}} That really should be fixed upstream. Most the .c .h files seems to contain a MIT license in the header. But those not: {{{ ./xpr-1.0.1/x2pmp.c ./xpr-1.0.1/pmp.h ./xpr-1.0.1/xpr.h ./luit-1.0.1/locale.c ./xeyes-1.0.1/transform.c ./xeyes-1.0.1/Eyes.h ./xeyes-1.0.1/EyesP.h ./xeyes-1.0.1/transform.h ./xload-1.0.1/get_rload.c ./xload-1.0.1/xload.h }}} * rpmlint E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided XFree86 E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11 E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided XFree86-tools E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-tools -> These were probably needed during the switch to modular X -- are they still needed? Maybe just drop them. Providing those probably does not make sense anymore. W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86 W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11 W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-tools W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-tools -> That should be fixed, in case we sometime in the future want to provide packages with those names again W: xorg-x11-apps invalid-license MIT/X11 -> please use "MIT" W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides luit W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides oclock W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides x11perf W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xbiff W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xclipboard W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xclock W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xconsole W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xcursorgen W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xeyes W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xkill W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xload W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xlogo W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xmag W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xmessage W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xpr W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xwd W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xwud -> Those packages have versions upstream, we should provide them * MISC: * From files: %dir %{_datadir}/X11 -> a lot of packages own that dir. It should be owned by only one package (maybe by the filesystem) * From files: %{_datadir}/X11/app-defaults/ -> Owning %dir %{_datadir}/X11 but not it's subdir app-defaults/ is "interesting" * Hmm, a lot of apps, but no docs? At least x-Message has a README that maybe should be shipped * A lot of GUI apps, but no desktop files. Quoting the guidelines: " - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation." * the "pkgname" macro -- why define a macro if it's used only in one place? Please consider getting rid of. * besides that: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) license is open source-compatible. BuildRequires are proper. final provides and requires are sane: no shared libraries are present. package is not relocatable. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. %clean is present. no scriptlets present. code, not content. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. no headers. no pkgconfig files. no libtool .la droppings. not a GUI app. not a web app. no open bugs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:53:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:53:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226572] Merge Review: xorg-x11-docs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031653.l13GrJMa024531@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-docs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226572 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 16:54:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:54:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031654.l13Gsj7F024620@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|chris.stone at gmail.com |jorton at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:01:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225957] Merge Review: k3b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031701.l13H1IDZ024937@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: k3b https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957 ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-03 12:01 EST ------- Hi there, The following are the review items that stand out. I realize that almost all of the includes are prefixed with "k3b" but nonetheless it would be nice to put all of them in a subdir such as: /usr/include/k3b/ Anyway, the list of items is: - please use the preferred BuildRoot - rpmlint complains about a number of things: - devel content in non-devel package (many files) - please consider creating a sub-dir such as /usr/include/k3b to contain all the k3b headers - dead patches are still being carried around and should probably be deleted: W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch1: k3b-0.11.3-kde32.patch W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch2: k3b-0.11.6-desktopfile.patch W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch5: k3b-0.11.14-version.patch W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch7: k3b-0.11.17-dao.patch W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch6: k3b-0.11.14-suid.patch W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch9: k3b-0.11.23-proxy.patch W: k3b patch-not-applied Patch8: k3b-0.12.2-statfs.patch - please remove prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig - I don't really understand this--can someone else please help explain it: /tmp/k3b-0.12.17-1.i386.rpm.30099/usr/share/applications/kde-k3b.desktop: warning: file contains key "DocPath", this key is currently reserved for use within KDE, and should in the future KDE releases be prefixed by "X-" - please consider adding %{?dist} to Release -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:03:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:03:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031703.l13H3j78025103@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |mbarabas at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 12:03 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source lftp-3.5.1.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * BuildRequires: gettext is missing (required to build the translations) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) * rpmlint is not silent, see below Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: autoconf (by automake), automake (by libtool) * Please honor $RPM_OPT_FLAGS rpmlint of lftp-3.5.1-2.fc6.i386.rpm:E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so. 0.0.0 ['/usr/lib'] E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1/proto-ftp.so ['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1', '/usr/lib'] E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1/proto-fish.so ['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1', '/usr/lib'] E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1/proto-http.so ['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1', '/usr/lib'] E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1/liblftp-network.so ['/usr/lib'] E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1/proto-sftp.so ['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.1', '/usr/lib'] W: lftp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/lftp.conf W: lftp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so W: lftp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so.0.0.0 E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so.0.0.0 E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so.0.0.0 E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so.0.0.0 [ruben at odin lftp]$ rpmlint lftp-3.5.1-2.fc6.src.rpm W: lftp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 1) W: lftp patch-not-applied Patch2: lftp-3.4.1-dont_core.patch W: lftp patch-not-applied Patch181694: lftp-3.4.2-fix-redirect-coredump.patch W: lftp patch-not-applied Patch173276: lftp-3.3.5-bz173276.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:03:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:03:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031703.l13H3nTq025119@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2007-02-03 12:03 EST ------- perl package itself is 30MB, not counting its deps. But this does not matter; problem is, that 'aspell-import' (which is the only part which requires perl) is not needed for core functionality. See http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-August/msg00735.html too -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:03:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:03:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225247] Merge Review: anacron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031703.l13H3slL025128@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-03 12:03 EST ------- Summary: Minor items need fixing before I can sign off on the review. See the attached spec file diff which includes the needed changes. Once the changes get into the cvs tree, ping this report so I can confirm and approve. anacron GOOD + rpmlint... see the notes at the end. I've rolled in changes into the spec from the rpmlint log + packagename is fine + specfile name + license check GPL , matches source license, and COPYING file included in %doc + spec is english-ish + md5sum check of sources 9fdfc50f5741643332722a9145146278 anacron_2.3.orig.tar.gz from srpm 9fdfc50f5741643332722a9145146278 anacron_2.3.orig.tar.gz from upstream url +mock build as done by matt http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/anacron-2.3-45.fc7.src.rpm/result/ + no buildrequires.... + no shared libs + not designed to be relocatable + no duplicates in the files section + file permissions look okay to me + no headers or static libs + docs section looks fine + no devel subpackage + no gui apps + no obvious duplicate file/directory ownership BAD - need to add requires on initscripts do to file in /etc/rc.d/init.d/ Ref ReviewGuidelines MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. - SRC location in spec not connecting this one works http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/anacron/anacron_2.3.orig.tar.gz - NEEDSFIX Prereq: /sbin/chkconfig replace with 2 lines for scriptlet operation Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig - NEEDSFIX you also need Requires(postun): /sbin/service Requires(preun): /sbin/service - NEEDSFIX clean the buildroot correctly rpmlint run from matt/dell: rpmlint on ./anacron-2.3-45.fc7.i386.rpm W: anacron summary-ended-with-dot A cron-like program that can run jobs lost during downtime. ...fixed in my spec diff W: anacron no-url-tag ...Not necessary, but since debian is the upstream src for this perhaps URL: http://packages.debian.org/stable/source/anacron ive added this in my spec diff W: anacron conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/anacrontab W: anacron conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/cron.daily/0anacron W: anacron conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/cron.monthly/0anacron W: anacron conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/cron.weekly/0anacron ...These should really be marked as noreplace. I think you definitely want rpm to respect any local changes to thise files. Changed in my spec diff. W: anacron conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/anacron ...This one probably shouldn't be noreplace. E: anacron executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.weekly/0anacron E: anacron executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/anacron E: anacron executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/0anacron E: anacron executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.monthly/0anacron ...rpmlint is being paranoid. The cron scripts are typically executables which need to be local admin configurable. W: anacron service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/anacron ...not a problem.. if you really really mean to have anacron on by default. W: anacron incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/anacron $prog ...Dude i have no idea what this means W: anacron no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/anacron ...not horrible important. rpmlint on ./anacron-2.3-45.fc7.src.rpm W: anacron summary-ended-with-dot A cron-like program that can run jobs lost during downtime. W: anacron no-url-tag W: anacron strange-permission anacron.init 0755 W: anacron prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig E: anacron no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ...that's not good...fixed in my spec diff W: anacron mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 83, tab: line 92) ...no biggie W: anacron patch-not-applied Patch7: anacron-2.3-pie.patch W: anacron patch-not-applied Patch8: anacron-2.3-memoryleak.patch ...no biggie rpmlint on ./anacron-debuginfo-2.3-45.fc7.i386.rpm W: anacron-debuginfo no-url-tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:04:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:04:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225857] Merge Review: grep In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031704.l13H4hXg025179@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: grep https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225857 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:05:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:05:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225247] Merge Review: anacron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031705.l13H5dRT025230@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-03 12:05 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147276) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147276&action=view) spec file diff of doom. This has all the changes that need to be made to pass the merge review This has all the changes that need to be made to pass the merge review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:06:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225247] Merge Review: anacron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031706.l13H6vcJ025293@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jspaleta at gmail.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:08:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:08:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225236] Merge Review: acl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031708.l13H8btV025382@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225236 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |twoerner at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 12:08 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 4edd450bbee60d6c4b3c51ae80499b00 acl_2.2.39-1.tar.gz 4edd450bbee60d6c4b3c51ae80499b00 acl_2.2.39-1.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. - final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - Should build on all supported archs - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - Should have dist tag - Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. buildroot should be the standard. 2. Could add smp_mflags to build? 3. The devel package should probibly "Requires" the full %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 4. Our good friend rpmlint says: rpmlint on ./libacl-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm W: libacl summary-ended-with-dot Dynamic library for access control list support. Remove the . W: libacl no-documentation Ignore. rpmlint on ./acl-2.2.39-1.1.src.rpm W: acl summary-ended-with-dot Access control list utilities. Remove . W: acl prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig Ignore. W: acl macro-in-%changelog defattr Should be %%defattr in the changelog rpmlint on ./acl-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm W: acl summary-ended-with-dot Access control list utilities. Remove . rpmlint on ./libacl-devel-2.2.39-1.1.i386.rpm W: libacl-devel no-version-dependency-on libacl 2.2.39 Should be full verion... W: libacl-devel summary-ended-with-dot Access control list static libraries and headers. W: libacl-devel symlink-should-be-relative /usr/lib/libacl.so /lib/libacl.so I think that could be ignored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:11:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:11:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031711.l13HBZC2025480@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 12:11 EST ------- I'll review this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:12:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:12:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225957] Merge Review: k3b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031712.l13HCZj6025532@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: k3b https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957 ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-03 12:12 EST ------- Bummer. I hit "save changes" a little too fast. :-) There are a few other things that should have been listed: + Please see builds, logs, and rpmlint output at: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/k3b-0.12.17-1.src.rpm/result/ - the /usr/lib/kde3/*.la files should be deleted - some of the libs (e.g. /usr/lib/*.so) also belong in a separate -devel sub-package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:14:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:14:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031714.l13HEP3H025595@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-03 12:14 EST ------- Ruben, Why did you review lftp 3.5.1 from FC-6? Should you have reviewed lftp 3.5.9 available in rawhide (the patches have already been removed) ? jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:16:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:16:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031716.l13HGdEg025681@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mclasen at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 12:16 EST ------- Passed ====== MUST: NVR is fine (assuming that renaming the package to glib breaks various things) MUST: spec filename matches package name MUST: license is fine (LGPL) MUST: license field is fine MUST: license in upstream tarball and marked as %doc MUST: spec in American English, as far as I can tell MUST: source matches upstream (both md5sum and sha1sum) MUST: compiled and built binaries on FC6 MUST: no ExcludeArch MUST: locales handled finely by %find_lang MUST: ldconfig called in %post and %postun MUST: no relocation MUST: no duplicate files MUST: file permissions fine MUST: %clean section exists and fine MUST: macros fine MUST: contains code MUST: no large docs MUST: %doc files should not be needed to run MUST: header files and static libs are in -devel MUST: -devel require pkgconfig MUST: *.so files are in -devel MUST: -devel has fully versioned dependency MUST: *.la file are removed MUST: not a GUI app MUST: does not seem to own dirs owned by others Suggestions and improvements ============================ * rpmlint gives the following errors: for glib2: E: glib2 obsolete-not-provided glib-gtkbeta E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh 0755 E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh 0755 for glib2-devel: E: glib2-devel obsolete-not-provided glib-gtkbeta-devel E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib I believe all should be fixed. * The CVS contains several dropped patches that may need to be removed (depending on how a merge would happen) * The line BuildRequires: pkgconfig >= 0.8 doesn't make sense, specially since rawhide has had a newer version since Feb 2002 and also that since it has had that, it also had an epoch of 1. From the requirement from the configure.in file, it should perhaps be pkgconfig >= 1:0.14. Also update the "Requires" in -devel to 1:0.14. * The viewpoint of the summary for the devel sub-package does not match the viewpoint of the summary of the main package. They should be aligned. * The Conflicts lines are probably wrong or unnecessary. Even if it's required, the reason should be documented and the line probably be changed to "Requires". See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts for details * Static libraries are enabled, contrary to the Packaging Guidelines. I guess the reason should be documented (anaconda?). * The make line in %build does not have %{?_smp_mflags}. * %check is empty for ppc and ppc64. The reason should perhaps be documented. * %defattr line should perhaps have an extra dash at the end: "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" * Package places files in /etc/profile.d (which is not in FHS), without owning the directory itself or having a Requires on a package that does. * May need to mark %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/* as %doc Review TODO =========== * Thorough consideration of packaging guidelines (a MUST item) * Theoretically, all dependenies may not be listed (a MUST item), as I did not do a Rawhide mock build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:19:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:19:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031719.l13HJMj9025748@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-03 12:19 EST ------- Is there a reason for including the docs in postscript? I think not, but when it is, then -docs subpackage is required. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:20:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:20:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225857] Merge Review: grep In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031720.l13HK06H025797@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: grep https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225857 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |skasal at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 12:19 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source grep-2.5.1a.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * BuildRequires: gzip should not be included (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions) * Encoding should be UTF-8 * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) * Don't use PreReq for install-info, use Requires(post) and Requires(postun) * Please don't strip symbols from files (LDFLAGS= -s) Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: grep summary-ended-with-dot The GNU versions of grep pattern matching utilities. E: grep tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: grep non-utf8-spec-file grep.spec W: grep prereq-use /sbin/install-info W: grep make-check-outside-check-section make check W: grep macro-in-%changelog post rpmlint of grep: W: grep summary-ended-with-dot The GNU versions of grep pattern matching utilities. E: grep tag-not-utf8 %changelog -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:20:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:20:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226424] Merge Review: sound-juicer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031720.l13HK3xA025811@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sound-juicer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226424 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |alexl at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 12:19 EST ------- Good: * Tarball matches upstream. * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * All paths begin with macros * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Package builds in Mock. Must Fix: * Source URL is not canonical. * Missing Package URL. http://www.burtonini.com/blog/computers/sound-juicer * Sound Juicer shouldn't own the following directories (hicolor-icon-theme should be the sole owner): /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps Minor: * Doesn't use the preferred buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Duplicate BuildRequires: GConf2-devel (by gnome-media-devel), gtk2-devel (by gnome-media-devel), gnome-vfs2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), glib2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), hal-devel (by gnome-vfs2-devel) * Unnecessary Requires on gstreamer, gtk, libmusicbrainz, and glib2. The BR on the devel packages should pull these in automatically. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:22:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:22:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226181] Merge Review: nano In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031722.l13HMePN025913@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nano https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226181 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu |dwmw2 at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-03 12:22 EST ------- Nice, a CC got added and I lost the entire review. Let's try this again in an external editor. First, a couple of rpmlint complaints: W: nano file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/fr/man1/rnano.1.gz Just needs judicious application of iconf like the other two manpages. W: nano prereq-use /sbin/install-info The Prereq: line should be replaced with: Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info Other than those two items, the issues are the BuildRoot:, the scriptlets and perhaps checking to see if it would be reasonable to update to 2.0.3. Review: * source files match upstream: f5537b8a988618fa8524b6a4b0a6950184d37db983b4521ad843b98845da571c nano-1.3.12.tar.gz O package meets naming and versioning guidelines. Release: should probably be an integer, but since the dist tag isn't being used, this looks like a sub-release bump and I don't believe it violates any guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. O dist tag is not present. X build root is not correct; should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Whether this is absolutely mandatory depends on a decision by FESCo, which should happen over the weekend. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. O latest version is not being packaged. The current upstream version seems to be 2.0.3. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: nano = 1.3.12-1.1 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info libncursesw.so.5 * %check is not present, no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. X scriptlets not OK: The install-info calls need "||:" at the end or a nodocs install will fail. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:23:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:23:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226181] Merge Review: nano In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031723.l13HNOAv025967@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nano https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226181 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:24:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:24:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031724.l13HOr9L026027@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:26:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226182] Merge Review: nasm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031726.l13HQfl9026107@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226182 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:28:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:28:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225706] Merge Review: dos2unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031728.l13HSotG026167@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dos2unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225706 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:34:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:34:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031734.l13HYP8n026292@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 12:34 EST ------- > * Theoretically, all dependenies may not be listed (a MUST item), as I did not > do a Rawhide mock build. Considering that this package has been built many times in brew, you can assume that the BRs are sufficient. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:35:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225706] Merge Review: dos2unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031735.l13HZroh026340@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dos2unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225706 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |twaugh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 12:35 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag. * Please use %{dist} in Release tag * Preserve file timestamps in %install Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: dos2unix invalid-license Freely distributable W: dos2unix no-url-tag W: dos2unix macro-in-%changelog description rpmlint of dos2unix: W: dos2unix invalid-license Freely distributable (you can use GPL) W: dos2unix no-url-tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:38:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:38:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031738.l13HcDuO026413@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:47:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:47:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031747.l13Hlgrs026623@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-03 12:47 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > ... > * Static libraries are enabled, contrary to the Packaging Guidelines. I guess > the reason should be documented (anaconda?). > ... One package that needs the glib2 static library is syslog-ng v2 (a sysklogd replacement). jpo PS - See #219771 for more information regarding syslog-ng 2.0.x. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:49:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:49:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031749.l13HnJn9026669@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |pknirsch at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 12:49 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 3aff94e92186e99ed5fd6dcee2db7c74 acpid-1.0.4.tar.gz 3aff94e92186e99ed5fd6dcee2db7c74 acpid-1.0.4.tar.gz.1 OK - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. See below - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 10 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Buildroot should be changed to standard. Should add smp_mflags? 2. Might include COPYING, README, Changelog, TODO as doc files? 3. rpmlint our pal says: rpmlint on ./acpid-1.0.4-5.i386.rpm W: acpid conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/acpi/events/power.conf W: acpid conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/acpi/events/video.conf W: acpid conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/logrotate.d/acpid Should all be noreplace? E: acpid non-readable /usr/sbin/acpid 0750 E: acpid non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/acpid 0750 Should this really be non readable by anyone? Why? If so, perhaps a rpmlint bug should be filed? W: acpid service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/acpid Should this really be enabled on all machines? Are there cases where it might not be desired by default? rpmlint on ./acpid-1.0.4-5.src.rpm W: acpid strange-permission acpid.init 0755 W: acpid prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service Should perhaps be: Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/service See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-a6d7a1ed9d77dbb8d4af067378a79b838aebb20a W: acpid setup-not-quiet Should add -q to setup. 4. In the files section: %verify(not md5 size mtime) %ghost %config(missingok,noreplace) /var/log/acpid Why all this? /usr/bin/acpi_listen /usr/sbin/acpid Should those have %{_bindir} and %{_sbindir} ? /usr/share/man/man8/acpid.8.gz /usr/share/man/man8/acpi_listen.8.gz Should have %{_mandir} ? 5. You might look at the outstanding bugs on this package. In particular the bugs asking for better scripts might stand to have a response like "please submit your outstanding scripts for inclusion" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:52:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:52:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031752.l13Hqgig026766@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 12:52 EST ------- > * rpmlint gives the following errors: > > E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh 0755 > E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh 0755 Every single file in /etc/profile.d is currently executable. If that is supposed to be changed, we should probably have a guideline addition about it. > E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib That is clearly a misleading rpmlint error. This is caused by glib living in /lib now, but the development stuff still being in /usr/lib. I hope nobody advocates moving /usr/lib/glib-2.0/include to /lib -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:53:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:53:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031753.l13HrRAL026824@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |varekova at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 12:53 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source bzip2-1.0.4.tar.gz is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Is it necessary to include static libraries? See wiki: Packaging/Guidelines#Exclusion of Static Libraries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 17:59:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 12:59:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031759.l13HxkT4026991@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:02:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:02:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226572] Merge Review: xorg-x11-docs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031802.l13I2aMC027138@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-docs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226572 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fedora at leemhuis.info |sandmann at redhat.com CC| |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-03 13:02 EST ------- * package name Quoting the guidelines: "Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage." doc, not docs. Please rename and place proper obsoletes and provides with versions. * install location All doc files should go to %doc (e.g. /usr/share/docs) -- that holds true for files in seperate doc packges, too. Please fix. Having a symlink from %{_datadir}/X11/doc/ to the target directory in %doc might be acceptable if there is a good reasons for it (e.g. in case upstream is installing the packages there) -- I leave that discussion up to you * version There is a 1.3 version online already. Is that specific to X.org 7.2 (which is not in rawhide as of now)? If not it might be wise to update to it. * rplint rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-docs-1.2-4.fc7.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-docs invalid-license MIT/X11 -> probably MIT (see below) W: xorg-x11-docs unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-doc W: xorg-x11-docs unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-doc W: xorg-x11-docs unversioned-explicit-provides XFree86-doc W: xorg-x11-docs unversioned-explicit-provides xorg-x11-doc -> Please place a version on those (well, not for xorg-x11-doc, as that will be the new name for the package) rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-docs-1.2-4.fc7.noarch.rpm W: xorg-x11-docs incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2-4.fc6 1.2-4.fc7 W: xorg-x11-docs invalid-license MIT/X11 * MISC: * I don't like that tarname macro, as it should be no problem to hardcode that in the two places where it is getting used. * From %install: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/X11/doc/hardcopy/XPRINT Would be nice to know why that is done -- a small comment would be nice Ohh, actually there is a comment in the files section. Why no simply exclude the deleted files there below the comment? Well, maybe even better: It IMHO would make the whole specfile a lot more readable if the files section would just contain the topdir of the doc target dir (and the man files). rpm will then make sure that all files and dirs get included properly. But that's a matter of style. * the source package ships a README -- should we ship that? * there is no COPYING file in the package -- how to make sure it's MIT? Might be wise to contact upstream about it. * Besides that: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. build root is correct. source files match upstream: f817c5df43817846c1b27bac83da74d7 xorg-docs-1.2.tar.bz2 final provides and requires are sane: no shared libraries are present. package is not relocatable. owns the directories it creates. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. %clean is present. no scriptlets present. no headers. no pkgconfig files. no libtool .la droppings. not a GUI app. not a web app. no open bugs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:07:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:07:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031807.l13I7qU1027404@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |caillon at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 13:07 EST ------- Good: * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Package builds in Mock. Must Fix: * Source URL in not canonical * Remove unnecessary Requires: Requires(post): desktop-file-utils Requires(postun): desktop-file-utils Refer to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-de6770dd9867fcd085a73a4700f6bcd0d10294ef Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: glib2-devel (by pango-devel), pango-devel (by gtk2-devel), gtk2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libgnomeprint22-devel (by libgnomeprintui22-devel), autoconf (by libtool) * Could use -disable-static and not bother building static libs. * It looks like the Requires on GConf is unnecessary. * Is the conflicts on nautilus still necessary? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:09:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031809.l13I9HwA027464@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |pvrabec at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 13:09 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source cpio-2.6.tar.gz is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * BuildRequires: gettext is missing (required to build the translations) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) * Please preserve timestamps when installing files rpmlint is not silent: [ruben at odin cpio]$ rpmlint cpio-2.6-23.fc6.src.rpm W: cpio prereq-use /sbin/rmt W: cpio prereq-use /sbin/install-info Use Requires(post) and Requires(preun) instead W: cpio mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 99, tab: line 3) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:14:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:14:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225239] Merge Review: adjtimex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031814.l13IEkUW027599@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adjtimex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225239 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 13:14 EST ------- I will review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:17:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:17:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227221] New: Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system 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=227221 Summary: Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdieter at math.unl.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/arts.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SRPMS/all/arts-1.5.6-3.src.rpm Description: arts (analog real-time synthesizer) is the sound system of KDE 3. The principle of arts is to create/process sound using small modules which do certain tasks. These may be create a waveform (oscillators), play samples, filter data, add signals, perform effects like delay/flanger/chorus, or output the data to the soundcard. By connecting all those small modules together, you can perform complex tasks like simulating a mixer, generating an instrument or things like playing a wave file with some effects. %changelog * Fri Jan 26 2007 Rex Dieter 8:1.5.6-3 - BR: jack-audio-connection-kit-devel - include libartscbackend.la in main pkg (some legacy arts apps need it) * Wed Jan 24 2007 Rex Dieter 8:1.5.6-2 - nuke boost references in .la files * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter 8:1.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:18:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:18:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226547] Merge Review: x86info In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031818.l13IILS0027783@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: x86info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226547 rafalzaq at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rafalzaq at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:18:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225983] Merge Review: less In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031818.l13IIeoi027827@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: less https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225983 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ed at eh3.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:19:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:19:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227221] Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031819.l13IJSvM027887@bugzilla.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: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227221 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:19:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:19:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031819.l13IJwsN027951@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:21:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:21:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031821.l13ILC2N028037@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 13:21 EST ------- > One package that needs the glib2 static library is syslog-ng v2 (a sysklogd > replacement). I'd consider that a bug of syslog-ng. I did remove the static libraries from glib2 during the FC6 devel cycle, and then various people came out of the woods and admitted that they had linked to glib2 statically (some initscripts things, and at least one pam module). That was the reason we moved glib2 to /lib, so that we can stop shipping 5 statically linked copies of glib in /bin. But then Jeremy said that static glib libraries are also needed for anaconda. Since it is much harder to avoid static linking there, the static libaries were added back. I would be willing to move the static libraries to a -static subpackage if that helps. One bug relevant to this is bug 191678. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:22:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:22:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225720] Merge Review: eject In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031822.l13IM9Ye028107@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: eject https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225720 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:22:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:22:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227221] Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031822.l13IMn8T028170@bugzilla.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: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227221 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 13:22 EST ------- SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/arts-1.5.6-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:24:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:24:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031824.l13IOC9L028257@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 13:24 EST ------- /etc/profile.d is owned by setup, btw. I don't think we need to explicitly require that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:24:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:24:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227222] New: Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries 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=227222 Summary: Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdieter at math.unl.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdelibs.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdelibs-3.5.6-3.src.rpm Description: Libraries for the K Desktop Environment: KDE Libraries included: kdecore (KDE core library), kdeui (user interface), kfm (file manager), khtmlw (HTML widget), kio (Input/Output, networking), kspell (spelling checker), jscript (javascript), kab (addressbook), kimgio (image manipulation). %changelog * Wed Jan 24 2007 Rex Dieter 6:3.5.6-3 - respin kdelibs tarball - nuke boost references in .la files * Wed Jan 17 2007 Rex Dieter 6:3.5.6-2 - better automake(1.10) patch (kde bug #137675) * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter 6:3.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 - kde.(sh|csh): set/define KDEDIRS (instead of deprecated KDEDIR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:24:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:24:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225720] Merge Review: eject In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031824.l13IOw5J028330@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: eject https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225720 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |than at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 13:24 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source eject-2.1.5.tar.gz is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: autoconf (by automake), automake (by libtool) Notes: * Please use {?dist} in Release tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:25:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:25:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227222] Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031825.l13IPntl028385@bugzilla.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: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |227221 OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:26:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:26:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227221] Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031826.l13IQ03j028395@bugzilla.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: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227221 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |227222 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:29:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:29:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225735] Merge Review: ethtool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031829.l13ITk1P028508@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ethtool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225735 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:30:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227223] New: Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core 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=227223 Summary: Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdieter at math.unl.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdebase.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdebase-3.5.6-3.src.rpm Description: Core applications for the K Desktop Environment. Included are: kwin (window manager), konqueror (filemanager, web browser, ftp client...), konsole (xterm replacement), kpanel (application starter and desktop pager), kdehelp (viewer for kde help files, info and man pages), kthememgr (system for managing alternate theme packages) plus other KDE components (kcheckpass, kikbd, kscreensaver, kcontrol, kfind, kfontmanager, kmenuedit). %changelog * Mon Jan 22 2007 Rex Dieter 6:3.5.6-3 - *really* include pam.d/(kcheckpass,kscreensaver| to main pkg * Wed Jan 17 2007 Rex Dieter 6:3.5.6-2 - move pam.d/(kcheckpass,kscreensaver| to main pkg (from -kdm) * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter 6:3.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 * Thu Jan 04 2007 Rex Dieter 6:3.5.5-1.5 - use XDG_MENU_PREFIX=kde- - -kdm subpkg -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:31:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:31:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227223] Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031831.l13IVc2d028627@bugzilla.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: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227223 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |227222 OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:31:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:31:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227222] Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031831.l13IVdFh028636@bugzilla.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: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |227223 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:32:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:32:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225735] Merge Review: ethtool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031832.l13IWdKr028696@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ethtool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225735 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |jgarzik at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 13:32 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source ethtool-5.tar.gz is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) Rpmlint is not clean: [ruben at odin ethtool]$ rpmlint -i ethtool-5-1.fc6.i386.rpm W: ethtool symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/ethtool /sbin/ethtool Absolute symlinks are problematic eg. when working with chroot environments. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:37:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:37:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225239] Merge Review: adjtimex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031837.l13IbXrK028784@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adjtimex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225239 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |mlichvar at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 13:37 EST ------- OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 9888b54f418d7cc120fd3a4222f01c9c adjtimex-1.21.tar.gz 9888b54f418d7cc120fd3a4222f01c9c adjtimex-1.21.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 0 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. The License tag is wrong. It should be "GPL", not "distributable" 2. Buildroot is not correct. Use the suggested buildroot. 3. rpmlint says: rpmlint on ./adjtimex-debuginfo-1.21-1.fc7.i386.rpm W: adjtimex-debuginfo invalid-license distributable Fix license tag W: adjtimex-debuginfo no-url-tag Should add perhaps: URL: http://ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/system/admin/time/adjtimex.lsm rpmlint on ./adjtimex-1.21-1.fc7.i386.rpm W: adjtimex summary-ended-with-dot A utility for adjusting kernel time variables. Summary shouldn't end in . All these are pretty minor. Provided you make the above changes, I will be happy to APPROVE this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:37:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:37:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225983] Merge Review: less In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031837.l13IbuAg028800@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: less https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225983 ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-03 13:37 EST ------- For build, rpmlint, etc. info please see: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/less-394-6.fc7.src.rpm/result/ good: + source matches upstream + license is correct needswork or nits: - please remove the trailing '.' from the summary - rpmlint reports a few permissions errors: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/less-394-6.fc7.src.rpm/result/rpmlint.log - please consider adding %{?dist} to the Release - please include the license in %doc since upstream includes it - please use the preferred BuildRoot - please use %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:42:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:42:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031842.l13IgvpX028959@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |besfahbo at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 13:42 EST ------- Good: * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * All paths begin with macros * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Package builds in Mock. Must Fix: * The devel package require should be: Requires: libogg = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} * Is the static lib necessary? If so, it should be split out into a sub-package. Refer to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7 Minor: * Doesn't use preferred buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Drop the '.' from the summary to quite rpmlint. * To clean out the install & clean section, you should probably use 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' for consistancy * Does this package build using 'make %{_smp_mflags}'? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:47:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:47:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226056] Merge Review: libvorbis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031847.l13IltEx029095@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libvorbis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226056 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:48:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:48:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031848.l13ImLfY029109@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 mr.ecik at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147271|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-03 13:48 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147277) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147277&action=view) aspell-pl-6.0-2.20061121 New, prettier spec file ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:52:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:52:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031852.l13IqERd029212@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 13:52 EST ------- I would be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:52:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:52:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227227] New: Review Request: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE 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=227227 Summary: Review Request: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdieter at math.unl.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdepim.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdepim-3.5.6-5.src.rpm Description: The KDE-PIM project aims to bring together those who wish to help design, implement, test, etc. anything that's to do with personal information management. This rather broad scope encompasses mail clients, addressbooks, usenet news, scheduling and even sticky notes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:53:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227227] Review Request: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031853.l13Irw6Z029310@bugzilla.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: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227227 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |227222 OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:53:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227222] Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031853.l13Irw0W029318@bugzilla.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: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |227227 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 18:54:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:54:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031854.l13IsTbM029361@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 13:54 EST ------- FWIW, I disagree with the purging of "Duplicate BuildRequires" that seems to be proposed. If the configure script explicitly checks for glib2, it is a good idea to have an explicit BR for glib2-devel, even if pango-devel happens to pull it in already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:03:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:03:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227228] New: Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME 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=227228 Summary: Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lxtnow at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/gshutdown.spec SRPM URL: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/gshutdown-0.2-1.rc1.fc6.src.rpm Description: GShutdown is an advanced shutdown utility which allows you to schedule the shutdown or the restart of your computer, or logout your actual session. Also can be use under Xfce and KDE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:06:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:06:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225710] Merge Review: dtach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031906.l13J6pYf029630@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dtach https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225710 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jspaleta at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:09:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:09:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031909.l13J9xme029752@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dan at danny.cz |kzak at redhat.com CC| |dan at danny.cz Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-03 14:09 EST ------- Here is the summary and formal review: OK source files match upstream: 5703f72d0eea1d463f735aad8222655f gawk-3.1.5.tar.bz2 5e260a21e93a29ff9066c39850ece860 gawk-3.1.5-ps.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK package installs properly OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires looks sane OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK code, not content. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. MUST FIX: BAD build root is NOT correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BAD rpmlint is NOT silent, problems are in the spec file only W: gawk summary-ended-with-dot The GNU version of the awk text processing utility. W: gawk no-url-tag W: gawk make-check-outside-check-section make check W: gawk mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 86, tab: line 21) The URL is http://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/gawk.html BAD %check is NOT present, but "make check" target exists and is used BAD scriptlets present, but not sane (bug #223686). BAD documentation is NOT small, so -docs subpackage may be necessary. BAD parallel make not used -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:16:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:16:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031916.l13JGIm6029972@bugzilla.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: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |cgoorah at yahoo.com.au OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-03 14:16 EST ------- It's like my kshutdown :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:16:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:16:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031916.l13JGZkk030018@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-03 14:16 EST ------- Why do we need /usr/share/doc/gawk-3.1.5/awkcard.ps and /usr/share/doc/gawk- 3.1.5/gawk.ps? Personally, I would like to avoid a -docs subpackage because of these two files because the rest is only a couple of README files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:18:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:18:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226254] Merge Review: perl-Devel-Symdump In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031918.l13JIQXk030105@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Devel-Symdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226254 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jpo at di.uminho.pt Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:25:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:25:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031925.l13JP7BF030325@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From caillon at redhat.com 2007-02-03 14:25 EST ------- I also disagree with canonicalizing the Source URL. It will need to be regularly updated to stay in sync, at least for GNOME URLs. Sources are typically "automatically" updated with the expansion of the %{version} macro, for example. So, %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 for example. With GNOME, you see things such as: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/file-roller/ and you need to update the sourceball's parent directory as well. So, 2.16.0 would have a URL of http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/file-roller/2.16/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 and 2.17.0 would have one of http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/file-roller/2.17/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 It's my impression we don't want to force people to do that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:26:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226056] Merge Review: libvorbis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031926.l13JQMpb030389@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libvorbis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226056 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |besfahbo at redhat.com CC| |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 14:26 EST ------- Good: * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * All paths begin with macros * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Package builds in Mock. Must Fix: * The devel package require should be: Requires: libvorbis = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} * Should use BuildRequires, instead of BuildPrereq for libogg * rpmlint gives the following error: E: libvorbis-devel obsolete-not-provided vorbis-devel * Is the static lib necessary? If so, it should be split out into a sub-package. Refer to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7 Minor: * Doesn't use preferred buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Drop the '.' from the summary to quite rpmlint. * Does this package build using 'make %{_smp_mflags}'? * rpmlint warnings: W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/floor1_inverse_dB_table.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/framing.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/v-comment.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/helper.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/vorbis-fidelity.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/stereo.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/programming.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/oggstream.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/vorbisfile/fileinfo.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/vorbis.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/index.html W: libvorbis-devel wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/libvorbis-devel-1.1.2/vorbisfile/seeking.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:30:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:30:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031930.l13JUhT6030525@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libpng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:31:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:31:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031931.l13JVJOZ030561@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |sgrubb at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 14:31 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (CPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 0 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Where is the upstream for this version? http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=130497 seems to have version 1.0.2, where is 1.0.4 available? 2. our pal rpmlint says: rpmlint on ./amtu-debuginfo-1.0.4-4.fc7.i386.rpm W: amtu-debuginfo invalid-license Common Public License This seems to be ignoreable... the CPL is a ok license. W: amtu-debuginfo no-url-tag Should add URL tag, perhaps: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=130497 rpmlint on ./amtu-1.0.4-4.fc7.src.rpm W: amtu invalid-license Common Public License W: amtu no-url-tag W: amtu setup-not-quiet Setup should have -q on it? E: amtu configure-without-libdir-spec Why aren't you using %configure? W: amtu macro-in-%changelog clean W: amtu macro-in-%changelog files Those should be %%clean and %%files E: amtu non-readable /usr/bin/amtu 0750 E: amtu non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/amtu 0750 Why is this 750? W: amtu wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/amtu-1.0.4/AMTUHowTo.txt This should be fixed to not have doc line endings... 3. Why the compiler setting stuff in build? Also, can you use %{smp_mflags} ? 4. Is the "Requires: audit >= 1.1.2" required? Looks like rpm picks up the libaudit requirement... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:39:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:39:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031939.l13Jd8du030774@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-03 14:38 EST ------- My opinion is to remove the *.ps files, which removes the whole source file gawk-3.1.5-ps.tar.gz, and also the whole /usr/share/docs/gawk-3.1.5/README_d directory, because it contains no relevant info. Perhaps README.multibyte and README.tests could be useful. As a result, there will be no need to create the docs subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:39:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:39:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031939.l13JdevS030823@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 14:39 EST ------- Note that you could do something like: http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/file-roller/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 If that format always holds true. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:40:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:40:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227230] New: Review Request: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs 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=227230 Summary: Review Request: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jonathan.underwood at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://jgu.nonlogic.org/emacs-bbdb.spec SRPM URL: http://jgu.nonlogic.org/emacs-bbdb-2.35-1.src.rpm Description: The Insidious Big Brother Database (BBDB) is a contact management utility created by Jamie Zawinski for use with Emacs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:40:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:40:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031940.l13Jejbh030891@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-03 14:40 EST ------- +1 - even if we're not at the mailing lists here and it's no voting... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:40:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031940.l13JewLE030920@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 14:40 EST ------- glib2-2.12.9-2.fc7 fixes quite a few of the initial comments. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:41:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:41:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225754] Merge Review: finger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031941.l13Jfogl030982@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:46:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:46:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225754] Merge Review: finger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031946.l13JkTwh031150@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |rvokal at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 14:46 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source bsd-finger-0.17.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * File list of finger-server looks OK * File list of finger looks OK * Config files of finger-server looks OK * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * BuildRequires: gcc should not be included (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions) * BuildRequires: perl should not be included (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions) * Encoding should be UTF-8 * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: finger summary-ended-with-dot The finger client. E: finger tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: finger no-url-tag E: finger non-utf8-spec-file finger.spec W: finger mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 62, tab: line 88) rpmlint of finger-server: W: finger-server summary-ended-with-dot The finger daemon. E: finger-server tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: finger-server no-url-tag E: finger-server non-readable /usr/sbin/in.fingerd 0711 E: finger-server non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/in.fingerd 0711 rpmlint of finger-server: is it OK ? (press Enter if yes, or else type your comment below) rpmlint of finger: W: finger summary-ended-with-dot The finger client. E: finger tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: finger no-url-tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:47:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:47:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225742] Merge Review: expat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031947.l13JlsI8031198@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225742 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:48:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225710] Merge Review: dtach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031948.l13Jmke0031241@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dtach https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225710 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jspaleta at gmail.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-03 14:48 EST ------- Summary: Minor specfile work need. See attached specfile diff. Note that I had to run the specfile through iconv to quiet the utf-8 related rpmlint warnings. The owner will need to implement the suggested changes, or come back into the ticket for discussion the suggestions they feel are misguided. dtach GOOD + rpmlint... see the notes at the end. I've rolled in changes into the spec from the rpmlint log info + packagename is fine + specfile name is fine + license check + GPL , matches source license, and COPYING file included in %doc + spec is english-ish + md5sum check of sources 9aa11433d5a5b4b9fed271f10102cf6f dtach-0.7.tar.gz from source tag 9aa11433d5a5b4b9fed271f10102cf6f ../rpmbuild/SOURCES/dtach-0.7.tar.gz from srpm install + mock build as done by matt http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/dtach-0.7-1.2.2.src.rpm/result + no buildrequires.... + no shared libs + not designed to be relocatable + no duplicates in the files section + file permissions look okay to me + no headers or static libs + docs section looks fine + no devel subpackage + no gui apps + no obvious duplicate file/directory ownership BAD There is nothing I consider a significant blocker. There are some minor specfile changes which are in the diff so I'm failing this review on general principles until the spec diff gets reviewed by the owner and incorporated. I did have to run the spec file through iconv to quiet the rpmlint utf-8 warnings. why does this spec have: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version} ? I don't think that is necessary so I have removed it in my new spec diff rpmlint run from matt/dell: rpmlint on ./dtach-0.7-1.2.2.src.rpm W: dtach summary-ended-with-dot A simple program that emulates the detach feature of screen. ... fixed in the spec diff E: dtach tag-not-utf8 %changelog ... wtf? E: dtach non-utf8-spec-file dtach.spec ... wtf? W: dtach setup-not-quiet ... fixed in spec diff W: dtach macro-in-%changelog clean ... fixed in spec diff... just to be sure this isnt gonna be a problem. Its silly really. rpmlint on ./dtach-debuginfo-0.7-1.2.2.i386.rpm E: dtach-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog rpmlint on ./dtach-0.7-1.2.2.i386.rpm W: dtach summary-ended-with-dot A simple program that emulates the detach feature of screen. E: dtach tag-not-utf8 %changelog -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:50:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:50:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225710] Merge Review: dtach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031950.l13Jopkk031282@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dtach https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225710 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-03 14:50 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147280) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147280&action=view) Diff of spec file which includes changes based on merge review Diff of spec file which includes changes based on merge review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:51:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:51:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031951.l13Jp3uw031306@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dan at danny.cz Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:53:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226254] Merge Review: perl-Devel-Symdump In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031953.l13JrSvw031380@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Devel-Symdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226254 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-03 14:53 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147281) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147281&action=view) Specfile patch Robin, The patch includes * update to version 2.07 (and an epoch bump 604 > 7) * expands a couple of tabs to spaces (release and requires lines) * removes a space (%setup line) * drops the perl build requirement (the perl package exists in the build root package set) * changes the order of the find options * removes the '|| :' in the %check section * adds a 'pm' to the man pages section jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:57:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:57:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226391] Merge Review: scim-bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031957.l13Jvpue031484@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-bridge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226391 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |petersen at redhat.com CC| |wtogami at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-03 14:57 EST ------- http://www.scim-im.org/projects/scim_bridge This seems to be down. Any idea what happened? Temporary? scim-bridge i386 rpmlint W: scim-bridge spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/scim-bridge-0.4.9/doc/icon/kasasagi.png W: scim-bridge spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/scim-bridge-0.4.9/doc/icon/kasasagi.svg Might as well fix this. E: scim-bridge zero-length /usr/share/doc/scim-bridge-0.4.9/README This is not bad. scim-bridge src rpmlint W: scim-bridge prereq-use gtk2 >= 2.9.1-2 This is legitimate by the comment. W: scim-bridge macro-in-%changelog _bindir This doesn't concern me, however you may want to just hardcode it so rpmlint stops complaining. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 19:59:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 14:59:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702031959.l13Jxlq4031515@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800 ------- Additional Comments From tromey at redhat.com 2007-02-03 14:59 EST ------- Sorry about that. It worked fine on my FC5 box, but I see now that it fails on FC6. I get a different error fwiw. I will fix this soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:03:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:03:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225742] Merge Review: expat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032003.l13K3WZM031635@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225742 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |jorton at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 15:03 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source expat-1.95.8.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * File list of expat looks OK * File list of expat-devel looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) * rpmlint of expat: W: expat summary-ended-with-dot A library for parsing XML. * rpmlint of expat-devel: W: expat-devel summary-ended-with-dot Libraries and include files to develop XML applications with expat. Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: autoconf (by automake), automake (by libtool) Notes: * Please use {?dist} in Release tag * You should Require(post) and Require(postun) ldconfig * Is it necessary to include static binaries (see the wiki: PackageGuidelines/Exclusion of Static Libraries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:09:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:09:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226182] Merge Review: nasm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032009.l13K95Aj031794@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226182 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu |pmachata at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-03 15:08 EST ------- Some rpmlint complaints: E: nasm non-utf8-spec-file nasm.spec E: nasm-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: nasm-doc tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: nasm tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: nasm-rdoff tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: nasm tag-not-utf8 %changelog These are all due to Trond's name in the changelog; it would probably be best to run the entire changelog through iconv to get rid of these. W: nasm-doc summary-ended-with-dot Documentation for NASM. W: nasm summary-ended-with-dot A portable x86 assembler which uses Intel-like syntax. W: nasm-rdoff summary-ended-with-dot Tools for the RDOFF binary format, sometimes used with NASM. W: nasm summary-ended-with-dot A portable x86 assembler which uses Intel-like syntax. Trivial to clean these up. W: nasm prereq-use /sbin/install-info Use this instead: Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info W: nasm setup-not-quiet Not a big deal, but you can pass "-q" on the %setup line to quiet it. W: nasm patch-not-applied Patch0: nasm-0.98-boguself2.patch If this patch isn't needed, it should probably just be removed. W: nasm-rdoff no-documentation This is OK. The only other issue I see is the BuildRoot:. Review: * source files match upstream: 7865f74acac6b7dccb58eda9164a86da40968eea8aa650926594e0083eaaed77 nasm-0.98.39.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. X build root is not correct; should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Whether this is absolutely mandatory depends on a decision by FESCo, which should happen over the weekend. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is unnecessary) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: nasm-0.98.39-4.fc7.i386.rpm nasm = 0.98.39-4.fc7 = /bin/sh /sbin/install-info (other packages have only basic dependencies) O %check is not present; there does seem to be something resembling a test suite in the source, but I'm not sure if it's feasible to run it at build time. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is in a -doc subpackage. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:18:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:18:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226322] Merge Review: psmisc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032018.l13KIH3j031994@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: psmisc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226322 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:19:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:19:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032019.l13KJKT0032025@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 15:19 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this package... look for a full review in a bit here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:20:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:20:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225256] Merge Review: arts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032020.l13KKrfF032085@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: arts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225256 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 15:20 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 227221 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:21:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:21:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227221] Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032021.l13KL5X3032109@bugzilla.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: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227221 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nobody at fedoraproject.org ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 15:21 EST ------- *** Bug 225256 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:21:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032021.l13KLce8032124@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 15:21 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 227222 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:21:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:21:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227222] Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032021.l13KLooq032145@bugzilla.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: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nobody at fedoraproject.org ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 15:21 EST ------- *** Bug 225963 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:22:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:22:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225961] Merge Review: kdebase In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032022.l13KM2qN032159@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdebase https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225961 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 15:22 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 227223 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:22:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:22:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227223] Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032022.l13KMEkG032183@bugzilla.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: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227223 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nobody at fedoraproject.org ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 15:22 EST ------- *** Bug 225961 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:22:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:22:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226162] Merge Review: mtools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032022.l13KMHFH032189@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mtools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226162 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ed at eh3.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-03 15:22 EST ------- Hi there, here's a quick review: good: + source matches upstream + license is OK and correctly included (GPL) + specfile is legible and looks good + dir ownership and permissions look good + has %clean and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" + pot/preun scriptlets look good + dir ownership and perms OK needswork: - please see the rpmlint output at: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/mtools-3.9.10-3.fc7.src.rpm/result/rpmlint.log which lists a few items that need attention - please use the preferred BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:23:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:23:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225965] Merge Review: kdepim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032023.l13KNCMX032238@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdepim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225965 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 15:23 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 227227 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:23:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:23:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227227] Review Request: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032023.l13KNNjK032258@bugzilla.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: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227227 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nobody at fedoraproject.org ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 15:23 EST ------- *** Bug 225965 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:33:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:33:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226229] Merge Review: pango In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032033.l13KXEtC032539@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pango https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226229 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 15:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > So, "LGPL plus/minus exception"? "LGPL with additional restrictions", I think. The additional restrictions would be whatever FTL/GPL would impose. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:36:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032036.l13Ka9mb032606@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-03 15:36 EST ------- first shots: - package release tag - because your are using CVS snapshot, so you must comply with http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-cfd71146dbb6f00cec9fe3623ea619f843394837 - perhaps wrong usage of %{makeinstall} - details at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002 - unowned dir - %{_libexecdir}/mc - mixed usage of spaces and tabs in the spec file, old entries in the changelog don't have escaped '%' in macros - explicit setting of --foodir=%{_foodir} when running the %configure macro, it is its function to set them :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:40:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:40:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032040.l13KeSSF000413@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:44:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:44:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226113] Merge Review: lynx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032044.l13KiItc000684@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lynx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226113 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-03 15:44 EST ------- I used the checklist from http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/JasonTibbitts/ReviewTemplate to look over this package. Someone with more experience should give it a review as well, though. rpmlint output from: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/lynx-2.8.6-2.src.rpm/result/rpmlint.log rpmlint on ./lynx-debuginfo-2.8.6-2.i386.rpm rpmlint on ./lynx-2.8.6-2.src.rpm W: lynx summary-ended-with-dot A text-based Web browser. W: lynx unversioned-explicit-provides webclient rpmlint on ./lynx-2.8.6-2.i386.rpm W: lynx summary-ended-with-dot A text-based Web browser. W: lynx conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/lynx.cfg W: lynx conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/lynx.lss W: lynx doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/lynx-2.8.6/samples/keepviewer /bin/sh W: lynx doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/lynx-2.8.6/samples/lynxdump /bin/sh W: lynx doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/lynx-2.8.6/samples/oldlynx /bin/sh o The unversioned-explicit-provides webclient issue seems to be standard procedure for web browser packages. firefox, for instance, has the same provides, and gets the same warning from rpmlint o The lack of a noreplace flag on /etc/lynx.cfg is apparently intentional - see the first few lines of that file. o /etc/lynx.lss probably should be flagged as %noreplace o Those doc files are apparently intended to be executable, since they are sample scripts. o source files match upstream: $ sha256sum lynx2.8.6.tar.bz2 41dfc33fcc23295810c3141c614427cca7882ab4e0774e58f6aa9bac9c2586f9 lynx2.8.6.tar.bz2 $ sha256sum lynx2.8.6rel.2.tar.bz2 41dfc33fcc23295810c3141c614427cca7882ab4e0774e58f6aa9bac9c2586f9 lynx2.8.6rel.2.tar.bz2 However, the URL for Source in the spec file is incorrect. The correct URL for the current version is: http://lynx.isc.org/current/lynx2.8.6rel.2.tar.bz2 o package meets naming and versioning guidelines. Looks fine to me. o specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. Looks fine to me. o dist tag is present. Nope. Needs to be added o build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Nope. o license field matches the actual license. Yes. o license is open source-compatible. Yes - GPL V2 in the COPYING file. o latest version is being packaged. Almost - there is a 2.8.6rel.4 available from upstream now. o BuildRequires are proper. Look fine to me. o compiler flags are appropriate. There's some magic in %build - looks like it is for getting the flags right on openssl and Ncurses/mouse support. Someone (other than me) should take a look at this. o %clean is present. Looks fine. o package builds in mock ( ). Yes. o package installs properly Yes. o debuginfo package looks complete. I'm not sure. o rpmlint is silent. See the warnings at the top ^ o final provides and requires are sane: Yes. o %check is present and all tests pass: No. o no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. Looks ok to me. o owns the directories it creates. Ok. o doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. Ok. o no duplicates in %files. Ok. o file permissions are appropriate. Yes, except might want to chmod -x the sample scripts that are located in /usr/share/doc/lynx-2.8.6/samples/ (rpmlint complains about them) o no scriptlets present. Ok. o code, not content. Ok. o documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. Ok. o %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. Ok. o no headers. Ok. o no pkgconfig files. Ok. o no libtool .la droppings. Ok. o not a GUI app. Well, no, it isn't. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:48:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:48:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032048.l13KmVsW000843@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libpng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |tgl at redhat.com CC| |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 15:48 EST ------- Good: * Source URL in canonical. * Group Tag is from official list. * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages Must Fix: * rpmlint errors: E: libpng useless-explicit-provides libpng.so.3 E: libpng tag-not-utf8 %changelog Minor: * Not preferred build root. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Drop the '.' from the devel summary to quite rpmlint. Is it still true that some graphical boot packages need the static lib? And if so, does it make sense to make a sub-package for the static lib? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:53:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:53:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225611] Merge Review: bc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032053.l13KrFYg001053@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225611 pace at alum.mit.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pace at alum.mit.edu 2007-02-03 15:53 EST ------- spec file says source is bc-1.06.tar.bz2 but gnu ftp site actually only has bc-1.06.tar.gz The actual contents of the file in the rpm package (when uncompressed) does match the gnu site. grep is in the build requirements because apparantly an old version of bc inserted a junk line into the "dir" file in the info system. grep is used in the %post script to detect the problem, and to clean the file. This script also uses "mv", causing rpmlint to complain about a dangerous command. This %post script, and the dependency on grep can probably be removed at this point. rpmlint complains "e: bc tag-not-utf8 %changelog" due to Trond entries remove dot from end of Summary -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:53:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:53:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225038] Review Request: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text editor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032053.l13KrT6c001083@bugzilla.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: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225038 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-03 15:53 EST ------- You should probably look at these chitlesh(SPECS)[0]$rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/medit-0.8.1-2.i386.rpm E: medit only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: medit standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/icons E: medit non-executable-script /usr/lib/moo/plugins/lib/pyconsole.py 0644 E: medit zero-length /usr/share/mime/XMLnamespaces E: medit zero-length /usr/share/mime/aliases E: medit zero-length /usr/lib/moo/plugins/project/mprj/test.py E: medit non-executable-script /usr/share/moo/language-specs/check.sh 0644 (In reply to comment #1) > "--vendor=Fedora" is not required anymore, juste set --vendor="". you should probably take note of this as well what's the difference between mooedit and medit ??? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:55:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225038] Review Request: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text editor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032055.l13KtiWd001260@bugzilla.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: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225038 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |cgoorah at yahoo.com.au OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 20:57:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 15:57:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226551] Merge Review: xchat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032057.l13Kvq4i001351@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xchat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226551 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:08:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:08:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032108.l13L8uZJ001731@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-03 16:08 EST ------- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/magic.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/magic-7.4.33-4.src.rpm See whether it's ok for you, before I'll commit to cvs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:13:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:13:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226380] Merge Review: rsync In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032113.l13LDHhu001884@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: rsync https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226380 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fenlason at redhat.com CC| |ed at eh3.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-03 16:13 EST ------- Hi there, here's a quick review: good: + source matches upstream + license is OK and correctly listed + spec looks clean/read-able needswork: - please remove the trailing '.' from Summary - please add "URL: http://rsync.samba.org/" - please change the Source: URL so it works with "spectool -g" such as: Source: http://rsync.samba.org/ftp/rsync/rsync-%{version}.tar.gz - please consider adding %{?dist} to Release - please delete the Prefix: entry - please use the preferred BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - rpmlint reports a few additional warnings (mostly repeats of above): http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/rsync-2.6.9-1.src.rpm/result/rpmlint.log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:15:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:15:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225717] Merge Review: ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032115.l13LF8bH001941@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225717 pace at alum.mit.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pace at alum.mit.edu 2007-02-03 16:15 EST ------- Change "Prereq /sbin/install-info" to "BuildRequires info" In %changelog, change "May 23 1999" comment from "%post" to "%%post" Remove dot from end of Summary: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:17:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:17:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226135] Merge Review: memtest86+ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032117.l13LHHQg001997@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: memtest86+ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226135 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:20:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226551] Merge Review: xchat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032120.l13LKiDe002152@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xchat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226551 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |caillon at redhat.com CC| |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 16:20 EST ------- Good: * Source URL is canonical * Group Tag is from the official list * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages * Make succeeds even when %{_smp_mflags} is defined Must Fix: * Package should have ownership of %{_libdir}/xchat Minor: * Not preferred buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Duplicate BuildRequires: perl (by perl), glib2-devel (by GConf2-devel), pkgconfig (by GConf2-devel), gtk2-devel (by gtkspell-devel) * some rpmlint errors that aren't blockers: W: xchat incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.6.6-8 1:2.6.6-8.fc7 E: xchat tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: xchat non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/apps_xchat_url_handler.schemas -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:22:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226135] Merge Review: memtest86+ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032122.l13LMFPW002233@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: memtest86+ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226135 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |wtogami at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 16:22 EST ------- Hi Warren, Review for release 4.1: * RPM name is OK * Source memtest86+-1.65.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) Notes: * Please use {?dist} in Release tag * Is the Obsoletes: memtest86 still necessary? Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: memtest86+ strange-permission new-memtest-pkg 0775 W: memtest86+ strange-permission memtest-setup 0775 W: memtest86+ unversioned-explicit-obsoletes memtest86 W: memtest86+ macro-in-%changelog version rpmlint of memtest86+: E: memtest86+ obsolete-not-provided memtest86 E: memtest86+ no-binary W: memtest86+ wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/memtest86+-1.65/README -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:24:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:24:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226322] Merge Review: psmisc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032124.l13LOqdS002336@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: psmisc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226322 andy.grimm at ingres.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andy.grimm at ingres.com, | |ed at eh3.com ------- Additional Comments From andy.grimm at ingres.com 2007-02-03 16:24 EST ------- I reviewed this one. Just a few things: rpmlint on ./psmisc-22.2-5.src.rpm W: psmisc summary-ended-with-dot Utilities for managing processes on your system. W: psmisc macro-in-%changelog _includedir Please use the %{dist} in release BuildRequires should require gettext rather than gettext-devel Otherwise, it looks good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:26:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:26:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032126.l13LQu8N002454@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-03 16:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > > One package that needs the glib2 static library is syslog-ng v2 (a sysklogd > > replacement). > > I'd consider that a bug of syslog-ng. I did remove the static libraries from > glib2 during the FC6 devel cycle, and then various people came out of the woods > and admitted that they had linked to glib2 statically (some initscripts things, > and at least one pam module). That was the reason we moved glib2 to /lib, so > that we can stop shipping 5 statically linked copies of glib in /bin. But then > Jeremy said that static glib libraries are also needed for anaconda. Since it is > much harder to avoid static linking there, the static libaries were added back. Syslog-ng v2 links glib2 and eventlog statically by default. There is a configure option to enable the dynamic linking of the above libraries. I will try it and also try to have the eventlog dynamic library installed in /lib. > I would be willing to move the static libraries to a -static subpackage if that > helps. > > One bug relevant to this is bug 191678. Thanks for the reference. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:28:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:28:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 173388] Review Request: mod_evasive - Denial of Service evasion module for Apache In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032128.l13LSUxo002514@bugzilla.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_evasive - Denial of Service evasion module for Apache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173388 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 16:28 EST ------- Looks perfect. This package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:29:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:29:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198816] Review Request: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032129.l13LTer3002598@bugzilla.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: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198816 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 16:29 EST ------- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:30:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032130.l13LU4d7002648@bugzilla.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: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-03 16:30 EST ------- Are you still have the 404 error ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:32:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:32:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225853] Merge Review: gpart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032132.l13LWqPf002750@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gpart https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225853 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:33:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:33:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032133.l13LXQPG002777@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-03 16:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > glib2-2.12.9-2.fc7 fixes quite a few of the initial comments. Thanks for the static subpackage. A couple more of pedantic requests: * preserve the timestamps of the .sh/.csh scripts (install -p -m 755 ...) * move the URL: line closer to the Source: line it's hard to spot it after the build requires jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:34:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226039] Merge Review: libraw1394 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032134.l13LYvJa002854@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libraw1394 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226039 pace at alum.mit.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pace at alum.mit.edu 2007-02-03 16:34 EST ------- macros in %changelog: change %dist to %%dist; %files to %%files Everything else ok (source matches updstream; license ok) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:40:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:40:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032140.l13Le6IR003062@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:43:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:43:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032143.l13LhpNt003261@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hdparm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 andy.grimm at ingres.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ed at eh3.com ------- Additional Comments From andy.grimm at ingres.com 2007-02-03 16:43 EST ------- I'm reviewing this one (not sponsored yet) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:46:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032146.l13Lk18m003321@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-03 16:46 EST ------- Okay doing the merge review. Summary: There are things which need to be changed to meet the established review guidelines. Which I will go over in bloody detail below. However let me first say that I certaintly in agreement with Enrico concerning the perl dep issue and I would very much recommend that the perl script be moved to a subpackage or pushed into the docs section..whatever it takes to keep perl from being a hard requirement of the base package. Though the perl issue is outside of my strict mandate to for the merge review. I have attached a spec file diff which incorporate an attempt to fix the issues I list as blockers below. The package maintainer needs to review each of the spec changes and make sure they are valid, the work, and aren't contentious. If the package owner has a problem with anything I suggest, they need to report back into this bug so we can talk about it. Okay so on with the review aspell Checklist: + GOOD - BAD + rpmlint... see the notes at the end. I've rolled in changes into the spec from the rpmlint log + packagename is fine + specfile name is fine + license check LGPL in spec tag matches COPYING file in upstream source and COPYING file included in doc section + spec is english-ish + md5sum check of sources 17fd8acac6293336bcef44391b71e337 aspell-0.60.5.tar.gz from SOURCE URL 17fd8acac6293336bcef44391b71e337 rpmbuild/SOURCES/aspell-0.60.5.tar.gz from SRPM + mock build as done by matt + no buildrequires look good. + shared libs look fine ldconfig is being called in post preun as expected + not designed to be relocatable + no duplicates in the files section + file permissions look okay to me - locales.. not so good + headers in devel subpackage no static libs + docs section looks fine + no gui apps + no obvious duplicate file/directory ownership BAD: MUSTFIX: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. MUSTFIX: Need to rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the install section. MUSTFIX: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). MUSTFIX: remove Prereq and use Requires(x) syntax for scriptlets rpmlint run from matt/dell: ... notes from reviewer inline rpmlint on ./aspell-debuginfo-0.60.5-2.fc7.i386.rpm rpmlint on ./aspell-devel-0.60.5-2.fc7.i386.rpm W: aspell-devel summary-ended-with-dot Static libraries and header files for Aspell development. ... fixed in spec diff rpmlint on ./aspell-0.60.5-2.fc7.i386.rpm E: aspell obsolete-not-provided ispell ... looks like a valid obsolete E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-de E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-fr E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-ca E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-da E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-es E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-it E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-nl E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-no E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-sv ... since these are versioned obsoletes which have newer versions in the package tree these are completely bogus error messages. In fact, does aspell need to keep these obsoletes at all? E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-pt_BR ... this doesnt have a current package which provides this. This is most likely a valid obsoletes, and a dead-end.. so no error. E: aspell obsolete-not-provided aspell-config ... this is no longer provided by anything. Is this a valid obsoletes? Is the pspell-config binary equivalent? If so can an aspell-config symlink be added and a Provides put in place? I'm honestly not sure about this error. Package owner will have to provide some backstory concerning this obsoletes. W: aspell file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/aspell.info.gz ... ewww uhm this is an upstream issue. I dont think we can just run iconv on a gzipped info file... perhaps rpmlint is just being silly here. rpmlint on ./aspell-0.60.5-2.fc7.src.rpm W: aspell prereq-use /sbin/install-info ... fixed with Requires(post) and Requires(preun) in spec diff W: aspell unversioned-explicit-provides pspell W: aspell unversioned-explicit-obsoletes ispell W: aspell unversioned-explicit-obsoletes pspell W: aspell unversioned-explicit-obsoletes aspell-pt_BR W: aspell unversioned-explicit-obsoletes aspell-config W: aspell unversioned-explicit-provides pspell-devel W: aspell unversioned-explicit-obsoletes pspell-devel W: aspell macro-in-%changelog doc ... reworded the changelog entry spec diff W: aspell macro-in-%changelog serial ... reworded the changelog entry in spec diff -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:47:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:47:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032147.l13Ll0ok003370@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-03 16:46 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147283) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147283&action=view) spec file diff of doom. This has all the changes that need to be made to pass the merge review spec file diff of doom. This has all the changes that need to be made to pass the merge review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:49:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:49:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032149.l13LnZHT003480@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |notting at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 16:49 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list of chkconfig looks OK * File list of ntsysv looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: newt (by newt-devel) Notes: * Please use {?dist} in the Release tag * I'm not sure what BuildPrereq does, but can you use BuildReq? * Can you use make DESTDIR instead of make instroot * Replace /etc with %{_sysconfdir} and /usr/sbin with %{_sbindir} rpmlint output is not silent: [ruben at odin chkconfig]$ cat rpmlint-srpm.log W: chkconfig no-url-tag W: chkconfig buildprereq-use newt newt-devel gettext W: chkconfig macro-in-%changelog pre W: chkconfig macro-in-%changelog pre -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:50:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:50:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032150.l13LoTt1003558@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:50:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:50:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225736] Merge Review: evince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032150.l13LoUcC003578@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: evince https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225736 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:53:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032153.l13Lr0pb003657@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dan at danny.cz Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-03 16:52 EST ------- first shot: - %find_lang macro instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/*.mo (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8c605ebf8330f6d505f384e671986fa99a8f72ee) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:53:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:53:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032153.l13LrttY003688@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:55:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:55:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225853] Merge Review: gpart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032155.l13LtlV6003758@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gpart https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225853 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |dcantrell at redhat.com CC| |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 16:55 EST ------- Good: * Source URL is canonical * Group Tag is from the official list * Package builds in Mock. Need to be Fixed: * rpmlint error: W: gpart-debuginfo no-url-tag Need to add URL: http://www.stud.uni-hannover.de/user/76201/gpart/ Minor: * Doesn't use preferred buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Drop the '.' from the summary to quite rpmlint. * Should use path macro. %{_bindir}/gpart -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:57:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:57:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225779] Merge Review: GConf2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032157.l13LvuJs003791@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: GConf2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225779 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 21:59:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 16:59:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032159.l13LxIwl003853@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |besfahbo at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 16:59 EST ------- GOOD ==== MUST: Naming Guidelines followed MUST: Packaging Guidelines generally followed (except SMP flags below) MUST: spec filename is fine MUST: License of the library itself is open source (LGPL/MPL) MUST: License filed matches actual licenses MUST: spec file legible MUST: sources match upstream (md5sum used) MUST: RPM build for i386 MUST: no ExcludeArch MUST: build dependencies fine MUST: no locales MUST: ldconfig called fine MUST: not relocatable MUST: no duplicate files MUST: file permissions fine (except for -debuginfo, mentioned below) MUST: %clean section fine MUST: macro use consistent MUST: package contains code MUST: large documentation files in -devel instead of -doc (acceptable) MUST: %doc does not affect run-time MUST: header files in -devel MUST: -devel requries pkgconfig MUST: *.so in -devel MUST: -devel has fully versioned dependency MUST: *.la removed explicitly MUST: not GUI MUST: doesn't own others' files or dirs SHOULD: no scriptlets SHOULD: no subpackage other than -devel SHOULD: pkgconfig file in -devel BAD === MUST: rpmlint output: $ rpmlint cairo-1.3.12-1.i386.rpm E: cairo obsolete-not-provided libpixman E: cairo obsolete-not-provided libpixman-devel E: cairo obsolete-not-provided libpixman-debuginfo (Provides should be added, -devel and -debuginfo should be obsoleted and provided by subpackages) $ rpmlint cairo-devel-1.3.12-1.i386.rpm W: cairo-devel no-documentation (The HTML files provided in the package are definitely documentation and should be marked as such.) $ rpmlint cairo-debuginfo-1.3.12-1.i386.rpm W: cairo-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/cairo-1.3.12/src/cairo-scaled-font.c W: cairo-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/cairo-1.3.12/src/cairoint.h (These two files are wrongly set to be executables.) MUST: licensing 1) The license files COPYING-LGPL-2.1 and COPYING-MPL-1.1 are not included in the binary RPM. 2) Some auxiliary files refer to GPL (like test/pdiff/pdiff.c), and say that one should have received a copy of the license with the file, while it is not available in the package itself. Upstream problem, but a SHOULD in review list (contact upstream). 3) Although the COPYING file mentions that all "auxiliary components" (test files etc.) are free software and refers to the files' headers, some are not, because their headers doesn't mention any such licensing, which makes them proprietary. Examples: composite-integer-translate-over-repeat.c, composite-integer-translate-source.c, ... in the tests subdirectory. MUST: US English Suggestions: replace "eg." with "e.g." or "for example"; capitalize "cairo" to "Cairo" in the -devel package description. MUST: owning directories The -devel subpackage installs files in /usr/share/gtk-doc/html without owning the directory or depending on anything that owns it. MUST: packaging guidelines * make should use %{?_smp_mflags} flag. SUGGESTIONS =========== * Consider shipping some of the not-shipped docs, like PORTING_GUIDE or TODO as documentation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:05:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:05:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227241] New: Review Request: kde-settings - Config files for kde 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=227241 Summary: Review Request: kde-settings - Config files for kde Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdieter at math.unl.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kde-settings.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kde-settings-3.5-17.src.rpm Put kde config files into separate pkg, so that changing app defaults/settings is easy and modular. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:06:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:06:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225872] Merge Review: gtkhtml3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032206.l13M6FWq004038@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtkhtml3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225872 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:08:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032208.l13M81aB004111@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From thomas at apestaart.org 2007-02-03 17:07 EST ------- well, 1.0.5 relies on raptor 1.4.13. afaict it's still 1.4.9 in extras, so I can't yet update. Will fix the other issue though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:09:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:09:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226892] Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032209.l13M96Mu004162@bugzilla.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: kpowersave - kde power control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226892 ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-03 17:08 EST ------- libkdeinit .la files are needed and kdelibs requires hicolor-icon-theme so the requires is redundant. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:09:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:09:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227244] New: Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book 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=227244 Summary: Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: splinux25 at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gfa/gfa.spec SRPM URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/gfa/gfa-0.4.1-1.src.rpm Description: gfa is a small and fast address book written in C and GTK+2. It uses sqlite as backend for the addresses -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:10:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:10:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227223] Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032210.l13MAsii004265@bugzilla.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: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227223 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 17:10 EST ------- SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdebase-3.5.6-4 .src.rpm %changelog * Sat Feb 03 2007 Rex Dieter 6:3.5.6-4 - kde-config -> kde-settings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:11:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:11:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227222] Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032211.l13MBCc0004280@bugzilla.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: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-03 17:11 EST ------- http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdelibs-3.5.6-4.src.rpm %changelog * Sat Feb 03 2007 Rex Dieter 6:3.5.6-4 - kde-config -> kde-settings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:12:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:12:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226428] Merge Review: speex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032212.l13MC70O004298@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: speex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226428 pace at alum.mit.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pace at alum.mit.edu, | |tcallawa at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pace at alum.mit.edu 2007-02-03 17:12 EST ------- Upstream source file location incorrect. Should be: http://downloads.us.xiph.org/releases/speex/speex-1.2beta1.tar.gz Not sure if package meets naming guidelines: Upstream calls it "speex-1.2beta1". rpm is called "speex-1.2-0.2.beta1" rpmlint complains that devel package has no documentation. All of the potential files are in the base package. Does speex-devel need "BuildRequires: automake" to install the file /usr/share/aclocal/speex.m4 ? Stuff that is ok: license; source tar file matches upstream; ldconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:12:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:12:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225784] Merge Review: gdbm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032212.l13MCZ3o004341@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gdbm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225784 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-03 17:12 EST ------- IMHO the main reason for still keeping gdbm (which is compatibility interface to dbm and ndbm) were removed from the main library and moved to gdbm_compat in gdbm 1.8.1. Or am I wrong? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:12:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:12:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227244] Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032212.l13MCsqi004378@bugzilla.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: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227244 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |cgoorah at yahoo.com.au OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:14:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:14:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032214.l13ME7R6004456@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |mitr at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 17:13 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Source expect-5.43.0.tar.gz is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * rpmlint of expectk looks OK * rpmlint of expect-devel looks OK * File list of expectk looks OK * File list of expect-devel looks OK * File list of expect looks OK Needs work: * Use of buildroot is not consistant (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags) * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: tcl-devel (by tk-devel), libX11-devel (by tk-devel), autoconf (by automake) Notes: * Please use {?dist} in the Release tag * Can you use make DESTDIR instead of make INSTALLROOT? * Replace /usr/share/man with %{_docdir} everywhere * Are you willing to consider building with --disable-static. You're not packaging static libraries, and this saves some build time. * If one of the packages is a gui application, a .desktop file should be installed (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#desktop) rpmlint of expect-5.43.0-6.i386.rpm:E: expect invalid-soname /usr/lib/libexpect5.43.so libexpect5.43.so E: expect script-without-shebang /usr/lib/expect5.43/pkgIndex.tcl E: expect wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/expect5.43/cat-buffers "expect" E: expect non-executable-script /usr/lib/expect5.43/cat-buffers 0644 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:15:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:15:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225779] Merge Review: GConf2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032215.l13MF0tl004530@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: GConf2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225779 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |rstrode at redhat.com CC| |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 17:14 EST ------- Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages * All necessary BuildRequires listed. Minor: * Could use the -disable-static config flag, and not even bother building the static libs. * Duplicate BuildRequires: pkgconfig (by libxml2-devel), glib2-devel (by ORBit2-devel), autoconf (by libtool), automake (by libtool), perl-XML-Parser (by intltool) * rpmlint errors (Non-blockers): E: GConf2-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: GConf2-devel no-documentation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:19:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226400] Merge Review: screen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032219.l13MJAhM004629@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: screen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226400 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mmaslano at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-03 17:18 EST ------- Hi folks, here's a quick review: good: + source matches upstream (where "upstream" apparently == Juergen, not savannah.gnu.org) + license is GPL v2 -- OK + BuildRoot OK + scriptlets OK + dir ownership looks OK needswork: - since upstream includes a copy of the license, please include it in %doc - please list the license as "GPL", not "GPL2" rpmlint: - rpmlint whines about a few things (the permissions appear to be OK to ignore since screen needs them): http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/screen-4.0.3-2.fc7.src.rpm/result/rpmlint.log Please make the two tiny changes above and this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:19:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:19:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032219.l13MJBRF004645@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |twaugh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 17:18 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 00bfa16d58e034e3c2aa27f390390d30 bash-3.2.tar.gz 00bfa16d58e034e3c2aa27f390390d30 bash-3.2.tar.gz.1 0e904cb46ca873fcfa65df19b024bec9 bash-doc-3.2.tar.gz 0e904cb46ca873fcfa65df19b024bec9 bash-doc-3.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 3 open bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Could ask upstream to include the GPL COPYING file (minor, non blocker). 2. Why the: Prefix: %{_prefix} That should probibly be removed. 3. Buildroot should be set to the standard buildroot. 4. rpmlint, our little pal says: rpmlint on ./bash-3.2-4.fc7.src.rpm W: bash summary-ended-with-dot The GNU Bourne Again shell (bash) version 3.2. Remove . at end. E: bash tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: bash non-utf8-spec-file bash.spec Perhaps run iconv on the spec file to make it utf8? W: bash redundant-prefix-tag Remove prefix. W: bash unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bash2 W: bash unversioned-explicit-obsoletes etcskel W: bash unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bash2-doc W: bash unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bash-doc Are these still needed? W: bash make-check-outside-check-section make check Move 'make check' to a %check section. E: bash use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR Should change install to use '-p' and also refer to %SOURCEN instead of SOURCE_DIR. W: bash macro-in-%changelog pre W: bash macro-in-%changelog clean Should use %% for macros in changelog entries. W: bash mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 154, tab: line 98) Pick one of spaces or tabs. E: bash script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/bash-3.2/scripts/krand.bash E: bash script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/bash-3.2/scripts/bcsh.sh E: bash script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/bash-3.2/scripts/precedence E: bash script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/bash-3.2/scripts/shprompt Should be mode 644? W: bash hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/man/man1/..1.gz W: bash hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.bash_logout E: bash postin-without-install-info /usr/share/info/bash.info.gz E: bash postin-without-install-info /usr/share/info/bash.info.gz W: bash hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.bashrc W: bash hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.bash_profile W: bash dangerous-command-in-%postun mv Can all be ignored. 5. Should look at the open bugs for the package. In particular this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224567 Requires(post): ncurses Might be required. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:19:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225257] Merge Review: aspell-af In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032219.l13MJsZ9004676@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-af https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225257 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jspaleta at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:20:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:20:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195678] Review Request: redland-bindings - bindings for the redland RDF library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032220.l13MKDVM004712@bugzilla.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: redland-bindings - bindings for the redland RDF library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195678 ------- Additional Comments From thomas at apestaart.org 2007-02-03 17:20 EST ------- http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-5-i386-extras/redland-1.0.4-3.fc5/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:20:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:20:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032220.l13MKMj5004733@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-03 17:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > E: a2ps file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/a2ps/afm/fonts.map > > This looks like it can be ignored. Why can it be ignored? This seems to me that this is a serious blocker. /usr should be assumed to be read-only and there should never be any config file in it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:23:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:23:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226428] Merge Review: speex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032223.l13MNNad004839@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: speex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226428 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2007-02-03 17:23 EST ------- It does meet the naming guidelines. Devel without docs is ok. Ehh, I don't think we need BR: automake here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:24:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:24:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226104] Merge Review: logrotate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032224.l13MOSUk004876@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logrotate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226104 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:27:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032227.l13MR4PT005015@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 17:26 EST ------- Another suggestion (over Pedro's) is to make the "1:0.14" requirement a macro, as it's used two times, the second time being in the middle of the spec file where one may forget to update: %define pkgconfig_version 1:0.14 [...] pkgconfig >= %{pkgconfig_version} I skimmed the Packaging Guidelines also. All looks either good or don't-know-what-to-do now. As for setup requirement, since there is a requires chain of "setup -> basesystem -> glibc -> glib2", it's fine. For the executable files in /etc/profile.d, I will ping the authorities! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:27:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:27:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032227.l13MRY8i005040@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 besfahbo at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cworth at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-03 17:27 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > BAD > === > MUST: rpmlint output: > > $ rpmlint cairo-1.3.12-1.i386.rpm > E: cairo obsolete-not-provided libpixman > E: cairo obsolete-not-provided libpixman-devel > E: cairo obsolete-not-provided libpixman-debuginfo > > (Provides should be added, -devel and -debuginfo should be obsoleted and > provided by subpackages) This is intentional and not error. We are not providing libpixman in cairo. Hiding it. Anybody depending on libpixman is doomed. But the only user was cairo. So that's not a problem in reality. > $ rpmlint cairo-debuginfo-1.3.12-1.i386.rpm > W: cairo-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm > /usr/src/debug/cairo-1.3.12/src/cairo-scaled-font.c > W: cairo-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm > /usr/src/debug/cairo-1.3.12/src/cairoint.h Weird. Not sure howthis is happening. > MUST: US English > > Suggestions: replace "eg." with "e.g." or "for example"; capitalize "cairo" > to "Cairo" in the -devel package description. Carl advertises for non-capitalized name usage. Mostly to differentiate from the lesser known Cairo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:27:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:27:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225880] Merge Review: hal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032227.l13MRq5l005052@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225880 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |161548 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:28:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:28:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226104] Merge Review: logrotate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032228.l13MSM9E005088@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logrotate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226104 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |pvrabec at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 17:28 EST ------- * RPM name is OK * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag. * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) Notes: * There's no need to add -g to RPM_OPT_FLAGS, it's included by default * Use DESTDIR instead of PREFIX in %install * Preserve timestamps with install -p in %install * Is it necessary to create the empty logrotate.status? Rpmlint output: rpmlint of logrotate-3.7.4-11.fc6.i386.rpm:W: logrotate no-url-tag E: logrotate zero-length /var/lib/logrotate.status -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:30:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:30:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032230.l13MUW39005162@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 pace at alum.mit.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pace at alum.mit.edu, | |tcallawa at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pace at alum.mit.edu 2007-02-03 17:30 EST ------- Upstream tar file name is incorrect. Should be: http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/ogg/libogg-${version}.tar.gz libogg-devel needs "Requires: automake" due to installing /usr/share/aclocal/ogg.m4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:32:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:32:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032232.l13MW8Mv005233@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 17:32 EST ------- In reply to comment #3: Well, It's unclear how hard it would be to move this map file (which is generated on install). If it's possible to move I agree it would be good to do so. The upstream for this package appears to be very dead. :( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:32:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:32:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032232.l13MWJ7l005253@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:34:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:34:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032234.l13MYSNk005307@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From thomas at apestaart.org 2007-02-03 17:34 EST ------- http://thomas.apestaart.org/download/pkg/fedora-5-i386-extras/redland-1.0.4-3.fc5/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:34:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:34:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195678] Review Request: redland-bindings - bindings for the redland RDF library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032234.l13MYek6005330@bugzilla.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: redland-bindings - bindings for the redland RDF library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195678 ------- Additional Comments From thomas at apestaart.org 2007-02-03 17:34 EST ------- sorry, that was supposed to go in the other bug report :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:34:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:34:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032234.l13MYgk6005335@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hdparm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 andy.grimm at ingres.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andy.grimm at ingres.com ------- Additional Comments From andy.grimm at ingres.com 2007-02-03 17:34 EST ------- This one has several rpmlint errors: rpmlint on ./hdparm-6.9-1.src.rpm W: hdparm summary-ended-with-dot A utility for displaying and/or setting hard disk parameters. - Remove the dot E: hdparm tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: hdparm non-utf8-spec-file hdparm.spec - make sure that umlauted characters and such are utf8-encoded, not latin-1 E: hdparm no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install - clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install. W: hdparm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 9) W: hdparm patch-not-applied Patch2: hdparm-6.3-idestruct.patch - Remove the patch if it's no longer needed Also: * LICENSE.TXT must be included as a %doc Other things look fine. Checked: * md5sum matches upstream * specfile is clean * license is acceptable * buildrequires is fine * no locales, no shlibs, no relocations, etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:34:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:34:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226162] Merge Review: mtools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032234.l13MYXYc005324@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mtools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226162 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |atkac at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 17:34 EST ------- Assigning to owner who should fix the problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:36:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:36:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032236.l13Mahuq005401@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-03 17:36 EST ------- Is it really necessary to rerun the autotools? The cp /usr/share/aclocal/libtool.m4 m4/ also seems wrong to me. Why not use %configure? %{?_smp_mflags} should be used (or a comment added). You should preserve timestamps for font files with -p for install. Why is there a Requires on info? On devel a2ps doesn't seem to work for ps files: $ a2ps /usr/share/doc/bash-3.2/bash.ps -o t.ps [/usr/share/doc/bash-3.2/bash.ps (PostScript): 121 pages on 61 sheets] [Total: 121 pages on 61 sheets] saved into the file `t.ps' it seems to render them as ascii text. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:41:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:41:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225291] Merge Review: audiofile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032241.l13MfnnO005541@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: audiofile https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225291 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:43:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:43:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032243.l13MhAbL005603@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 17:43 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this. Look for a full review in a bit... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:44:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226135] Merge Review: memtest86+ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032244.l13MiNGU005669@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: memtest86+ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226135 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wtogami at redhat.com |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-03 17:44 EST ------- > Needs work: > * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) OK > * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment > (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) OK, comment indicates that it isn't necessary. > * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros > (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) Nothing remaining has a standardized macro available. > * The package should contain the text of the license > (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. (does not apply) >Notes: >* Please use {?dist} in Release tag DONE >* Is the Obsoletes: memtest86 still necessary? Not really, removed > rpmlint of memtest86+: >E: memtest86+ no-binary rpmlint is just confused by this strange package. > W: memtest86+ wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/memtest86+-1.65/README What?! (Assigning back to reviewer) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:45:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:45:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032245.l13MjUgA005707@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jpo at di.uminho.pt Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:46:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:46:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032246.l13Mk6Xd005718@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jspaleta at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-03 17:46 EST ------- excellent..... (In reply to comment #4) > Created an attachment (id=147277) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147277&action=view) [edit] > aspell-pl-6.0-2.20061121 > > New, prettier spec file ;) I was going to start marching my way through these aspell library packages as part of the merge review. The new build section you added to enable compression appears to be a general item that I can replicate in all the specs for all the libs. Would you agree? I'm going to do the review of your new spec file... and make that the basis of my merge review. The compression is just too damn good to not use for all the dictionaries. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:50:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:50:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032250.l13MoP8F005830@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-03 17:50 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147287) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147287&action=view) Specfile patch Robin, The patch corrects a couple of minor issues: * corrects the previous changelog entry * changes the order of the find options * expands tabs to spaces jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:51:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:51:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226260] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032251.l13MpjQk005880@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226260 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jpo at di.uminho.pt Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:54:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:54:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225291] Merge Review: audiofile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032254.l13MsETa005966@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: audiofile https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225291 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |alexl at redhat.com CC| |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 17:54 EST ------- Good: * Source URL is canonical * Group Tag is from the official list Needs to be Fixed: * rpmlint error: W: audiofile no-url-tag * Requires for devel package should be: Requires: %{name} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} Minor: * Remove the '.' from the summaries to quite rpmlint. * Doesn't use the preferred buildroot. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1 * I don't believe the 'Prereq: /sbin/ldconfig' is needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 22:58:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:58:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032258.l13Mwx9K006092@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fedora at leemhuis.info |ajackson at redhat.com CC| |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-03 17:58 EST ------- * I understand the reasons for this package, but it looks like a maintaince nightmare as somebody needs to make sure this package is updated each time new drivers get added to the tree. That sucks :-/ -- for example currently there are at least xorg-x11-drv-amd and xorg-x11-drv-tek4957 available on i386, but not requires by this (I don't think that's on purpose). Suggestions to improve it (just for discussion, I'm unsure what the proper solution is): ship a script that generates the template for the specfile from cvs or "yum list" automatically. Or use something similar to the (ugly)trick that is used in the kmod packages to run a script and include it's output in the spec file instead of hardcoding the output in the spec -- Then a simple rebuild should do everything correctly. BTW, in case we stick to the current solution: the script mentioned in the comment would actually be more useful if one would know what what "xorg-all-drivers.txt" is or how it can be generated * Quoting the spec {{{ # This should match the list of architectures we build the Xorg server for. # Note the lack of s390{,x}. ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ia64 ppc ppc64 alpha sparc sparc64 }}} and all those {{{ %ifarch foo Requires: bar %endif }}} It IMHO would me wiser if we'd could use a ExcludeArch and ifnarch those packages and archs where we now those drivers don't exisit. But that's just my opinion and a detail and probably not worth the work... * rpmlint rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drivers-7.1-3.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-drivers invalid-license MIT/X11 -> MIT would be correct; But I fail what precisely is MIT licensed here... E: xorg-x11-drivers obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11 -> Why is that obsolete there in any case? E: xorg-x11-drivers no-binary - acceptable in this case W: xorg-x11-drivers no-documentation - might be a good idea to just create a small README that exaplains the purpose of this package (any maybe what might happen if you remove it) rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drivers-7.1-3.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-drivers invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above W: xorg-x11-drivers unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11 -> if the obsoletes needs to stay better provide one with a version number -- that way we might be able to create a package with that name n the future * MISC: * "URL: http://www.redhat.com", I don't think that's helpful (might even be confusing), so maybe it should be removed * dist-tags are no must, but might be nice to use * Besides the stuff outlines above: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. BuildRequires are proper. no shared libraries are present. package is not relocatable. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. %clean is present. %check is present and all tests pass: (include the summary from the test suite, if any) no scriptlets present. code, not content. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. no headers. no pkgconfig files. no libtool .la droppings. not a GUI app. not a web app. no open bugs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:00:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:00:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032300.l13N0xFN006133@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-03 18:00 EST ------- > no open bugs Argh, no, that's untrue -- especially fixing Bug 198294 would be nice. The other should probably just moved where they belong or closed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:03:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:03:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226135] Merge Review: memtest86+ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032303.l13N3Zwh006204@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: memtest86+ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226135 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |wtogami at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-03 18:03 EST ------- > Nothing remaining has a standardized macro available. Only the /usr/include in BuildRequires > /usr/share/doc/memtest86+-1.65/README > What?! [ruben at odin memtest86+-1.65]$ file README README: ASCII English text, with CRLF line terminators [ruben at odin memtest86+-1.65]$ hexdump -C README | tail -3 000089b0 6d 74 65 73 74 38 36 2b 20 76 31 2e 31 31 29 2e |mtest86+ v1.11).| 000089c0 0d 0a |..| 000089c2 0d 0a, that's CRLF on the last line. Nevermind, this is nitpicking This package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:04:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:04:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032304.l13N4c6f006238@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-03 18:04 EST ------- Robin, Please also add perl(Test::Pod) to the build requirements: ---------- BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version)) ---------- jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:04:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:04:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226574] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-acecad In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032304.l13N4dQ4006246@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-acecad https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226574 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:09:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032309.l13N9VoB006362@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu |rvokal at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-03 18:09 EST ------- Where does the tarball come from? Upstream doesn't seem to have any actual tarball abailable for download. If it's from a CVS checkout, can you detail in the spec (or in a script) how you do the checkout, and name the tarball and choose the release appropriately based on the checkout date as detailed in the naming guidelines at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Basically, the version-release pair should be something like 1.84-11.20070203cvs. If you're checking out a tag, I'm not sure what the best way to name it is. Or perhaps we could consider whether or not one of the other netcat variants is a better choice. Rpmlint has a few complaints: W: nc summary-ended-with-dot Reads and writes data across network connections using TCP or UDP. W: nc summary-ended-with-dot Reads and writes data across network connections using TCP or UDP. Easy to fix these up. W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/alta /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/bsh /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/dist.sh /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/irc /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/iscan /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/ncp /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/probe /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/web /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/webproxy /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/webrelay /bin/sh W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/websearch /bin/sh Documentation shouldn't be executable. Review: X I can't check whether the source files match upstream. X package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. X build root is not correct; should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X license field matches the actual license. I can find no mention of the GPL; this looks to me to be more like the X11 license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. ? latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. The requirement for pkgconfig is unnecessary, though, as glib2-devel requires it. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %makeinstall is not used. * package builds in mock. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: nc = 1.84-10.fc7 = /bin/sh glib2 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:12:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:12:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032312.l13NCkP0006478@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 18:12 EST ------- rpmlint's output: RPM: W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-test W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-legacy W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-beta W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-rawhide W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/fedora-release W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-extras W: fedora-release non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-rawhide SRPM: W: fedora-release unversioned-explicit-obsoletes redhat-release W: fedora-release unversioned-explicit-provides redhat-release -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:13:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032313.l13NDdYx006521@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jspaleta at gmail.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-03 18:13 EST ------- bah no i can't actually do the merge review of the new specfile, because it's using a different upstream src tarball. So i can't actually do the md5sum check against upstream and an srpm...there's no valid srpm which uses the new src location yet. I'll have to wait for the owner of this to incorporate your new spec, but other dictionaries I'll be able to include your compression fix and roll a spec without the other srcball change issue. Removing my review flag, until I can get a new srpm to chew on. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:13:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:13:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226260] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032313.l13NDTHF006515@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226260 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-03 18:13 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147288) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147288&action=view) Specfile patch Robin, The patch: * updates to version 3.56. * brings specfile closer to the Fedora's Perl template. * converts specfile to UTF-8 (changelog entries). * adds examples and doc files. * adds perl(Test::Pod) to the build requirements list. jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:14:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:14:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032314.l13NENp7006590@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bug-buddy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rstrode at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-03 18:14 EST ------- Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages * All necessary BuildRequires listed. Need to Check: * Ray, you might want to check w/ Rex Dieter about removing the vendor on the desktop file. I believe the vendor needs to remain constant for the life of a package due to menu-editing (which bases off of .desktop file/path names). Minor Non-Blocker: * * Duplicate BuildRequires: libbonobo-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), pango-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libgnomecanvas-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), gtk2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), gnome-vfs2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), glib2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libxml2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libgnome-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libglade2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libgnomeui-devel (by gnome-desktop-devel) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:14:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:14:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226185] Merge Review: ncompress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032314.l13NEUdR006607@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncompress https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226185 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:19:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032319.l13NJVMf006757@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |varekova at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 18:19 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 5 open bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Should use a full URL in Source line. What is the upstream for this package? This is version 3.7.4, which I see no where on http://www2.logwatch.org:81/tabs/download/ That site has version 7.3.2. 2. Should include COPYING file. 3. Buildroot should be standard buildroot. 4. rpmlint, out little pal says: rpmlint on ./logrotate-debuginfo-3.7.4-11.fc7.i386.rpm W: logrotate-debuginfo no-url-tag rpmlint on ./logrotate-3.7.4-11.fc7.src.rpm W: logrotate no-url-tag rpmlint on ./logrotate-3.7.4-11.fc7.i386.rpm W: logrotate no-url-tag URL should be fixed. See point 1. E: logrotate zero-length /var/lib/logrotate.status Should this be set the same way. 5. Should look at the 5 open bugs pending. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:23:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:23:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226400] Merge Review: screen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032323.l13NN81o006916@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: screen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226400 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:23:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:23:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225779] Merge Review: GConf2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032323.l13NNFX8006928@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: GConf2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225779 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:23:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:23:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225771] Merge Review: fribidi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032323.l13NNTsd006965@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fribidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225771 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 18:23 EST ------- Taking this for review, as I maintain the pyfribidi package that depends on this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:23:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:23:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226394] Merge Review: scim-m17n In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032323.l13NNSbM006960@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-m17n https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226394 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:29:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226182] Merge Review: nasm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032329.l13NT0uX007111@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226182 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-03 18:28 EST ------- Just a note: I did attempt to build this package with "make DESTDIR=.. install" instead of %makeinstall and it failed to build with the usual permission failures as it tries to write outside of the buildroot. So %makeinstall seems to be required here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:30:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:30:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226302] Merge Review: pm-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032330.l13NUIL6007174@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pm-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226302 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 18:30 EST ------- I would be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:32:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:32:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225661] Merge Review: createrepo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032332.l13NWg71007233@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: createrepo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225661 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 18:32 EST ------- Taking for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:37:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032337.l13Nb5nc007311@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gcc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jakub at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 18:36 EST ------- BLOCKER: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec But it currently is gcc41.spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:46:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:46:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226574] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-acecad In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032346.l13NkZaV007538@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-acecad https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226574 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fedora at leemhuis.info |krh at redhat.com CC| |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-03 18:46 EST ------- * "%define cvsdate xxxxxxx" -> not used, please remove * from %files: "%dir %{moduledir}" "%dir %{driverdir}" -> it's bad that all the driver packages own those directory. Suggestion: let xorg-x11-server-Xorg own them, as that package is required in any case * why no include the ChangeLog as %doc? * COPYING is there, thus: "If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc." BTW, it this "This is a stub file. [...]" stuff again. That seems to be present in quite some packages and it might be really nice to get that fixed upstream... * "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ia64 ppc alpha sparc sparc64" -- Why that? why not simply "ExcludeArch: s390" -- that way it will work if x86_128 or another new fancy arch shows up * rpmlint rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drv-acecad-1.1.0-2.1.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-drv-acecad incoherent-version-in-changelog control 1.1.0-2.1 -> easily fixed W: xorg-x11-drv-acecad invalid-license MIT/X11 -> "MIT" rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drv-acecad-debuginfo-1.1.0-2.1.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-drv-acecad-debuginfo invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drv-acecad-1.1.0-2.1.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-drv-acecad invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above W: xorg-x11-drv-acecad mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 3) -> easily fixed * MISC: * I dislike that "tarball" macro, as it should not change that often and it's used only in two places. Is it really worth it? * The %description could be improved (it's identical to the summary, besides the Xorg vs X.org), but well, probably not that important * Besides that: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. build root is correct. license field matches the actual license. license is open source-compatible. source files match upstream: a85d9d9fa8086e1629b2fd8699acba1af6878e98 xf86-input-acecad-1.1.0.tar.bz2 latest version is being packaged. final provides and requires are sane: no shared libraries are present. package is not relocatable. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. %clean is present. no scriptlets present. code, not content. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. no headers. no pkgconfig files. no libtool .la droppings. not a GUI app. not a web app. there is a open bug, but not packaging releated -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:47:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:47:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226185] Merge Review: ncompress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032347.l13Nle3U007586@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncompress https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226185 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu |pvrabec at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-03 18:47 EST ------- rpmlint is silent, so there's just the buildroot. * source files match upstream: d074dd867a22272fe1a22166b4644dda9ff09e41449f3f3bf3a15f2a070b00f8 ncompress-4.2.4.tar.Z * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. X build root should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * license field matches the actual license. The file LZW.INFO indicates that teh code is in the compression is in the public domain; I'm making the assumption that this covers the entire program. This package has been around for so long that I doubt that's incorrect. * license is open source-compatible. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (It's not necessary for gcc to be there.) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %makeinstall is not used. * package builds in mock. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane ncompress = 4.2.4-48.fc7 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:48:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226575] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032348.l13Nmmeh007609@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226575 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fedora at leemhuis.info -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:51:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:51:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226302] Merge Review: pm-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032351.l13NpKFg007680@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pm-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226302 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |pknirsch at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 18:51 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 15 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Is there no upstream repo for this package? Perhaps you could add it to 'hosted.fedoraproject.org' so it has some upstream presense? Also upstream for radeontool and vbetool links would be nice. 2. Why is pkgconfig BuildRequires there? 3. Should there be a Requires: pam? 4. Our rpmlint friend says: rpmlint on pm-utils-0.19.1-6.fc7.src.rpm W: pm-utils no-url-tag Would be nice to have upstream. W: pm-utils strange-permission 60sysfont.hook 0755 W: pm-utils strange-permission 65sound.hook 0755 I think thats ok. W: pm-utils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes vbetool W: pm-utils unversioned-explicit-provides vbetool W: pm-utils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes radeontool Would be very nice to provides versions on these if they are split out later. rpmlint on pm-utils-0.19.1-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: pm-utils no-url-tag W: pm-utils symlink-should-be-relative /etc/sysconfig/power-management /etc/pm/config Should make a relative symlink there. E: pm-utils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/pm/config E: pm-utils script-without-shebang /etc/pm/config Should be mode 644 W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-hibernate W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-hibernate W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-suspend W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/pm-powersave W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-suspend W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/pm-powersave I think these can't be avoided, but should perhaps be config(noreplace). W: pm-utils non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pm/hooks/49bluetooth E: pm-utils non-executable-script /etc/pm/hooks/49bluetooth 0644 Should remove the #!/bin/bash there. W: pm-utils dangerous-command-in-%pre cp What are you trying to do in that pre? It looks odd. 5. Why is there a Conflicts: bluez-utils < 2.25-6 ? Shouldn't you just require the newer one? 6. Should radeontool and vbetool be split out? 7. Should use smp_mflags? 8. Should check the 15 outstanding bugs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 3 23:57:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 18:57:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226575] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702032357.l13Nvg1H007831@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226575 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fedora at leemhuis.info |krh at redhat.com CC| |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-03 18:57 EST ------- * "%define cvsdate xxxxxxx" -> not used, please remove * from %files: "%dir %{moduledir}" "%dir %{driverdir}" -> it's bad that all the driver packages own those directory. Suggestion: let xorg-x11-server-Xorg own them, as that package is required in any case * why not include the ChangeLog as %doc? * COPYING is there, thus: "If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc." BTW, it this "This is a stub file. [...]" stuff again. That seems to be present in quite some packages and it might be really nice to get that fixed upstream... * "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ia64 ppc alpha sparc sparc64" -- Why that? why not simply "ExcludeArch: s390" -- that way it will work if x86_128 or another new fancy arch shows up * rpmlint: rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drv-aiptek-1.0.1-2.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek invalid-license MIT/X11 -> "MIT" rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drv-aiptek-debuginfo-1.0.1-2.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek-debuginfo invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-drv-aiptek-1.0.1-2.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above W: xorg-x11-drv-aiptek mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 3) -> easily fixed * MISC: * I dislike that "tarball" macro, as it should not change that often and it's used only in two places. Is it really worth it? * The %description could be improved (it's identical to the summary, besides the Xorg vs X.org), but well, probably not that important * Besides that: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. build root is correct. license field matches the actual license. license is open source-compatible. source files match upstream: cbe73ae471a11101b348f37ef9c9f5e38abacade xf86-input-aiptek-1.0.1.tar.bz2 latest version is being packaged. final provides and requires are sane no shared libraries are present. package is not relocatable. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. %clean is present. no scriptlets present. code, not content. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. no headers. no pkgconfig files. no libtool .la droppings. not a GUI app. not a web app. no open bugs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 00:06:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:06:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040006.l1406wrj007981@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800 ------- Additional Comments From tromey at redhat.com 2007-02-03 19:06 EST ------- Could you try this? http://people.redhat.com/~tromey/bbdb-srpm/emacs-bbdb-2.35-2.src.rpm This includes a makefile patch that I needed on FC6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 00:37:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:37:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225771] Merge Review: fribidi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040037.l140bopR008469@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fribidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225771 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |caolanm at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 19:37 EST ------- GOOD ==== MUST: rpmlint output fine: $ rpmlint fribidi-devel-0.10.7-5.1.i386.rpm W: fribidi-devel no-documentation MUST: spec filename matches %{name} MUST: package is free software MUST: License matches actual license (LGPL) MUST: text of license in both upstream and package as %doc MUST: spec file legible MUST: no ExcludeArch MUST: BuildRequires assumed fine MUST: no localization MUST: ldconfig used fine MUST: not relocatable MUST: owned dirs fine (-devel creates /usr/lib and depends on pkgconfig which owns it) MUST: no dup files MUST: clean section fine MUST: macro use consistent MUST: contains code MUST: no large documentation MUST: %docs don't affect runtime MUST: header files and static libs in -devel MUST: -devel which has *.pc Req's pkgconfig\ MUST: *.la explicitly removed MUST: not GUI MUST: does not own other's dirs SHOULD: no scriptlets SHOULD: no subpackages other than -devel SHOULD: *.pc files in -devel BAD === MUST: Package Naming Guidelines * release should use integers and dist-tags. should be changed to 6%{?dist} MUST: Packaging Guidelines * BuildRoot should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * "make" should be changed to "make %{?_smp_mflags}" * "%makeinstall" should be changed to "make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install" MUST: US English * FriBidi should be spelled with capital F and B in summary and description field of -devel subpackage. * Hebrew and Arabic should be spelled with capital H and A in descriptionp of main package. * "eg." should be changed to "e.g." or better, "for example": "for example Arabic and Hebrew"). * Static library (*.a) should not be packaged unless there is a very good reason for packaging it. MUST: source to match upstream * source matches upstream (md5sum checked) but Source: should be change to include the full URL: http://fribidi.org/download/fribidi-[...] MUST: file permissions * Please use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) (it's used twice). MUST: devel packages must require fully versioned dependency * -devel should do this instead of just %{name} = %{version}: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 00:42:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:42:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226547] Merge Review: x86info In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040042.l140gLWB008551@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: x86info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226547 ------- Additional Comments From rafalzaq at gmail.com 2007-02-03 19:42 EST ------- Things to fix: * rpmlint -v returns: I: x86info-debuginfo checking W: x86info-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog W: x86info-debuginfo no-url-tag I: x86info checking W: x86info summary-not-capitalized x86 processor information tool. W: x86info summary-ended-with-dot x86 processor information tool. W: x86info no-version-in-last-changelog W: x86info no-url-tag E: x86info obsolete-not-provided kernel-utils I: x86info checking W: x86info summary-not-capitalized x86 processor information tool. W: x86info summary-ended-with-dot x86 processor information tool. W: x86info no-url-tag W: x86info unversioned-explicit-obsoletes kernel-utils W: x86info rpm-buildroot-usage %build rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT W: x86info rpm-buildroot-usage %build mkdir -p %{buildroot}/usr/sbin E: x86info no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install W: x86info mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 5) * Release tag should be more legible * no URL tag * you must use one of the following Changelog formats: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300199c6a33128acce5fb453213 * preferred BuildRoot value is %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * you must choose one of the Build Root values: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f3d77b27a5d29dfc1f5600ef3fc836f2e317badf * make should use %{?_smp_mflags} flag * you don't need to use %setup -c -a 0 and cd x86info-%{version} * you should use rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (or rm -rf %{buildroot}) to clean out the install & clean sections * %{buildroot}/usr/share/man/man8 is not used, does it really needed? * COPYING, README and TODO files must be included in %doc * x86info binary must be in %{_sbindir} instead of /usr/sbin/ * Source tag should include direct path to the file (URL) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 00:42:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:42:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226571] Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040042.l140gaO0008592@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226571 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 19:42 EST ------- Believe me, you do _not_ want to install desktop files for xeyes and friends. I have complained about that wording in the packaging guidelines before. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 00:45:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:45:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227252] New: Review Request: xine-plugin - mozilla plugin using libxine as backend 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=227252 Summary: Review Request: xine-plugin - mozilla plugin using libxine as backend Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: martin.sourada at seznam.cz QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://feannatar.hostuju.cz/fedora/files/FC6/SPECS/xine-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://feannatar.hostuju.cz/fedora/files/FC6/SRPMS/xine-plugin-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: This is a very simple netscape/mozilla browser plugin using the xine engine to display multimedia streams. Features: - embedded display on browser window - streaming playback directly from xine engine - playback control using keyboard - relative paths supported - on screen display of buffering and stream information - playlists and references support - loop and repeat mode - multiple instances within the same page - javascript support Note: I am not sponsored. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 00:45:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040045.l140jlXG008693@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 19:45 EST ------- I can handle updating the version number in two places. Please try to restrict yourself to real packaging bugs, the pedantic requests can wait until later. We have hundreds of packages in the queue... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 00:49:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227252] Review Request: xine-plugin - mozilla plugin using libxine as backend In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040049.l140njOd008819@bugzilla.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: xine-plugin - mozilla plugin using libxine as backend https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227252 martin.sourada at seznam.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: xine-plugin |Review Request: xine-plugin |- mozilla plugin using |- mozilla plugin using |libxine as backend |libxine as backend OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 00:50:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:50:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040050.l140oBSS008853@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bug-buddy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 19:49 EST ------- I think it is not a good idea to remove BR for things that are explicitly required by configure, just because they happen to also be dragged in by something else. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 00:58:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:58:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225779] Merge Review: GConf2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040058.l140wN8N008954@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: GConf2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225779 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 19:58 EST ------- I've added --disable-static now, and fixed one gtk-doc related directory ownership problem that you have overlooked. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 00:59:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 19:59:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040059.l140xCjx008974@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 19:59 EST ------- I think the ruling is still out on forcing everybody who installs an automake macro to require automake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 01:13:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:13:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226424] Merge Review: sound-juicer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040113.l141DRQF009279@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sound-juicer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226424 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 20:13 EST ------- * Sat Feb 3 2007 Matthias Clasen - 2.16.2-3 - Minor fixes from package review: * Remove unnecessary Requires * Add URL * Correct Source, BuildRoot * Fix directory ownership -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 01:15:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:15:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040115.l141FQ4q009326@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 20:15 EST ------- nope, %{version} expsnds to 2.17.2, but the directory does not include the mico version number. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 01:24:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:24:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225661] Merge Review: createrepo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040124.l141OnRV009680@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: createrepo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225661 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |pnasrat at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 20:24 EST ------- GOOD ==== MUST: naming is fine MUST: spec filename matches %{name} MUST: free software MUST: License matches actual license (GPL) MUST: neither source package nor RPM contain the license file MUST: source matches upstream (md5sum checked) MUST: compiled and built as noarch MUST: no ExcludeArch MUST: no real build dep, instead of the minimum gang MUST: no locales MUST: not a lib, so no ldconfig MUST: not relocatable MUST: owns its dirs MUST: no dup files MUST: clean section fine MUST: macro use consistent MUST: no large docs MUST: docs don't affect runtime MUST: no header, libs or devel package MUST: not GUI MUST: doesn't own others' dirs BAD / COULD BE BETTER ===================== MUST: rpmlint output * SRPM: W: createrepo no-%build-section rpmlint suggests you add an empty %build section anyway. * RPM: E: createrepo explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python I think this is a false hit. MUST: US English * The description field should have a period at the end. MUST: spec file legiblity * The scriptlet check for RPM_BUILD_ROOT for not being equal to / is unnecessary and obsfucating. The value of that variable may as well be equal to /lib or /etc and destroy a system. Never run rpmbuild as root! MUST: file permissions * %defattr should be changed to %defattr(-, root, root, -), i.e., extra "-" at the end. MUST: Packaging Guidelines * The dependency on rpm should be changed to ">= 4.1.1", as current rpm in Rawhide doesn't have any epoch. * Source tag should be change to include full URL: http://linux.duke.edu/projects/metadata/generate/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz * BuildRoot should be changed to: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * %makeinstall should be replaced with: make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install * Instead of: %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/%{name}/* you can simply do: %{_datadir}/%{name} SHOULD: Upstream should be pinged to add license file (GPL) to package Other: * 'sources' and '.cvsignore' files (in CVS) contain lots of old versions. Remove older versions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 01:28:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:28:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] New: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones 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=227256 Summary: Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jafo-redhat at tummy.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin-0.3-1.src.rpm Description: This software is Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones (like C380/C650). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 01:36:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:36:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226542] Merge Review: words In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040136.l141accv009989@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: words https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226542 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 20:36 EST ------- Taking for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 01:46:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 20:46:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225880] Merge Review: hal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040146.l141kl6T010232@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225880 Bug 225880 depends on bug 161548, which changed state. Bug 161548 Summary: Hal owns directories that it should not own https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=161548 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:00:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:00:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226542] Merge Review: words In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040200.l1420I0H010463@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: words https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226542 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |kzak at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 21:00 EST ------- Partial review: GOOD ==== MUST: source matches upstream (md5sum checked) BAD === MUST: rpmlint output SRPM: W: words summary-ended-with-dot A dictionary of English words for the /usr/share/dict directory. E: words tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: words invalid-license public domain E: words non-utf8-spec-file words.spec E: words no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install All should be fixed: - Change License to "Public Domain" - Remove dot at the end of summart - change SPEC file to UTF-8 - clean the buildroot in %install using rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT For the RPM, the errors are a subset of above. * Version field is quite arbitrary (3.0) instead of matching upstream. * Separate license file into a different "Source" file. Also explain in the file that the license info in the file readme.txt is deprecated. * Change /usr/share in %files section to %{_datadir} * Change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:02:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:02:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040202.l1422pT6010520@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 21:01 EST ------- > * Consider shipping some of the not-shipped docs, like PORTING_GUIDE or > TODO as documentation. Neither PORTING_GUIDE nor TODO are useful documentation for users of cairo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:06:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:06:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225745] Merge Review: fedora-logos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040206.l14268w8010739@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-logos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225745 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |davidz at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 21:05 EST ------- BLOCKER: Package is not free software (MUST item in reviews), the license field is not a license type descriton either, but a copyright line instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:08:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:08:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040208.l1428mXh010823@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-03 21:08 EST ------- PORTING_GUIDE makes sense in -devel, if it was not so obsolete these days. Some packages ship TODO, other don't. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:12:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:12:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040212.l142C1Hv010906@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 21:11 EST ------- Taking for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:15:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:15:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040215.l142FBtV010976@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jnovy at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 21:14 EST ------- BLOCKER: No upstream or URL mentioned to check against (MUST item) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:15:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:15:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225890] Merge Review: htmlview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040215.l142FFq5010986@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: htmlview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225890 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |caillon at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 21:15 EST ------- BLOCKER: No upstream or URL mentioned to check against (MUST item) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:15:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:15:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225291] Merge Review: audiofile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040215.l142FFi5010992@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: audiofile https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225291 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 21:15 EST ------- I've corrected these things in audiofile-0.2.6-6.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:39:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:39:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225918] Merge Review: iso-codes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040239.l142dhrt011623@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: iso-codes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225918 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dsantani at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 21:39 EST ------- Partial review: MUSTFIX: * %{_datadir}/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/*.mo is used instead of find_lang. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#locales * Add dependency on pkgconfig to -devel package. * Don't use %makeinstall. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#MakeInstall * Either own /usr/share/xml, or depend on xml-common. * The ISO standards named in description should be changed to their proper name, "ISO 639" (instead of "ISO-639"), "ISO 3166-1" (instead of "ISO-3166"), and "ISO 3166-2" (instead of "ISO-3166-2"). SUGGESTIONS: * Consider using new upstream version (1.0a is available from: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/i/iso-codes/) * No need to use %{__mv} and %{__rm}. Use normal mv and rm. * Use "make %{?_smp_mflags}" * Add a dot at the end of -devel's description. * Could do %{_datadir}/iso-codes Instead of: %dir %{_datadir}/iso-codes %{_datadir}/iso-codes/*.tab -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:53:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:53:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226135] Merge Review: memtest86+ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040253.l142rLhD012048@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: memtest86+ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226135 ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-03 21:53 EST ------- Ah thanks. I fixed the includedir macro. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:54:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:54:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225890] Merge Review: htmlview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040254.l142snJ9012100@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: htmlview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225890 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|caillon at redhat.com |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-03 21:54 EST ------- Assigning this to me, htmlview must also be split launchmail into a separate package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 02:58:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:58:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225618] Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040258.l142w86b012140@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |besfahbo at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 21:58 EST ------- Generlly fine. Partial review: * Consider using %{?dist} in Release (mostly useful for upgrades, as different distro versions tend to need to have different scriptlets always). * rpmlint output: E: bitstream-vera-fonts description-line-too-long the licensing FAQ in /usr/share/doc/bitstream-vera-fonts-1.10/COPYRIGHT.TXT or the W: bitstream-vera-fonts invalid-license Redistributable, with restrictions Both should be fixed. * Use "-p" option to install in %install * This: %dir %{fontdir} %{fontdir}/*.ttf could be replaced with this: %{fontdir} * Uses /usr/share/fonts without owning it or depending on a package that does (fontconfig). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 03:00:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 22:00:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225291] Merge Review: audiofile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040300.l14307Hp012184@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: audiofile https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225291 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|alexl at redhat.com |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 03:04:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 22:04:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040304.l1434BV8012280@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mclasen at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 03:06:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 22:06:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226424] Merge Review: sound-juicer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040306.l1436EmQ012326@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sound-juicer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226424 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|alexl at redhat.com |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 03:07:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 22:07:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225853] Merge Review: gpart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040307.l1437Sek012340@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gpart https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225853 ------- Additional Comments From dcantrell at redhat.com 2007-02-03 22:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Need to be Fixed: > * rpmlint error: > W: gpart-debuginfo no-url-tag > Need to add URL: http://www.stud.uni-hannover.de/user/76201/gpart/ Done. > Minor: > * Doesn't use preferred buildroot: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Done. > * Drop the '.' from the summary to quite rpmlint. Done. > * Should use path macro. %{_bindir}/gpart I changed it to use %makeinstall instead. Also noticed the debuginfo package didn't actually contain anything. The src/Makefile was installing the gpart binary stripped, so there was nothing to pack in to debuginfo form. Fixed that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 03:09:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 22:09:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226022] Merge Review: libgpod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040309.l1439Gre012383@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libgpod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226022 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 22:09 EST ------- Its probably best to file a separate bug for the python bindings, and put it on FC7Tracker. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 03:10:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 22:10:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040310.l143AB0v012424@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 22:10 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > This is intentional and not error. We are not providing libpixman in cairo. > Hiding it. Anybody depending on libpixman is doomed. But the only user was > cairo. So that's not a problem in reality. What is the intended user experience here? * What should happen if a user has libpixman and old cairo installed and then tries to update his box to a repository that contains the present version of cairo? * What should happen if he only has libpixman and tries to install cairo from the same repository? * What should happen if a user has a new cairo and then tries to install a libpixman RPM (using a .rpm file he found somewhere that was copied from rawhide once)? Having answers for these three cases will help finding the best settings for the Obsoletes lines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 03:11:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 22:11:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226022] Merge Review: libgpod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040311.l143BS1B012459@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libgpod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226022 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tmz at pobox.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 03:45:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 22:45:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225880] Merge Review: hal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040345.l143jD7f013067@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225880 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|davidz at redhat.com |rc040203 at freenet.de Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-03 22:45 EST ------- Fixed in hal-0.5.8.1-8.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 04:02:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:02:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040402.l1442Ps5013334@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jkeating at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-03 23:02 EST ------- Partial review: BLOCKERS: * No upstream tarball to compare with included tarball (MUST item) * Version of source (6) doesn't match package version (6.90) * Description field is the same as summary field. * Licensing is quite varied and contradictory: - The License field mentions GFDL, while no mention of such a license exists in the tarball contents. - The tarball contains a copy of GPL, while no file in the package is actually licensed under the GPL either. - The license for the program "eula.py" is not mentioned in its header, making it proprietary software. - The file "README-Accessibility" in the package says "Copyright ? 2003 by Red Hat, Inc." (no mention of license, free or not) - The file "eula.txt" in the package says "Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Fedora Project. All rights reserved." (definitely not free) and also mentions a few trademarks. * The file "eula.txt" mentions weird things: - It says there is something called "Fedora Core". What is that? ;-) - It talks about "Fedora Core 6". But it's for "Fedora 7 test-something" or "Fedora Rawhide" or something. - It says that "The end user license agreement for each component is located in the component's source code." Rarely true. Instead, the source code usually contains a copyright license (like the GPL, which free software usually has), not an end user license agreement (which proprietary software usually has). - It says that except "certain image files containing the Fedora trademark", the license terms allow one to "[...] modify, and redistribute the component". Not always true, considering packages that are only "Distributable". Not always true because of Section 5 either. - It talks about a package named "anaconda-images", which does not exist in Fedora anymore. - In its Section 5, it requires things from users in Pakistan and basically asks them to "represent and warrant" that they will not help their neighbor[ing countries] and ask the US government for permission for giving a copy of the software (parts of which he may have written himself) to his friend, among other things. - I totally prefer licenses that say "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it" (from GPL clause 5), instead of those who say "By downloading, installing or using the Software, User agrees to the terms of this agreement." Who has written this anyway? ;-) - /me escapes SUGGESTIONS: * "fedora-release-6" or a part of it could become a macro. At the minimum could be replace with "%{name}-6". * Use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc * Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share * Use "cp -p" and "install -p" instead of "cp" and "install" everywhere * Use "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" instead of "%defattr(-,root,root)" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 04:02:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:02:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222388] Review Request: gnucash - personal finance management In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040402.l1442nMs013366@bugzilla.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: gnucash - personal finance management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222388 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-03 23:02 EST ------- Sounds good. I can review that at some point here if no one beats me to it. ;) On this package, the only thing I see left is to check if smp_mflags works all the time, or if it still causes problems. If you could do that before the next build that would be fine... This package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close it NEXTRELEASE once you have tested the smp_mflags and such. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 04:10:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:10:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226547] Merge Review: x86info In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040410.l144AeCt013693@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: x86info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226547 ------- Additional Comments From rafalzaq at gmail.com 2007-02-03 23:10 EST ------- And one more thing: use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 04:47:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:47:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226185] Merge Review: ncompress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040447.l144leOv015570@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncompress https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226185 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-03 23:47 EST ------- After some discussion with oher folks, I've realized that there's little point in blocking just because of the buildroot; it's more than reasonable to save a round-trip through the review process and just ask you to fix it when you check in. So, assuming you agree, we're good to go. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 04:49:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:49:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040449.l144nMUN015660@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-03 23:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Needs work: > * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed upstream. > (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) > * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment Sure! Although, there's only 4 source files. Can't speed it up *that* much. :) > (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) > * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros /etc, /usr/sbin are compiled in. Having it as a macro can't really help. > Minor: > * Duplicate BuildRequires: newt (by newt-devel) Fixed. > Notes: > * Please use {?dist} in the Release tag It's not really ever rebased between releases. > * I'm not sure what BuildPrereq does, but can you use BuildReq? It's a synonym. Switched, though. > * Can you use make DESTDIR instead of make instroot Fixed upstream. > * Replace /etc with %{_sysconfdir} and /usr/sbin with %{_sbindir} See above. > [ruben at odin chkconfig]$ cat rpmlint-srpm.log > W: chkconfig no-url-tag No URL to have. > W: chkconfig buildprereq-use newt newt-devel gettext > W: chkconfig macro-in-%changelog pre > W: chkconfig macro-in-%changelog pre Fixed. Uploaded spec @ http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 04:49:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:49:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225979] Merge Review: lam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040449.l144nxKJ015700@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225979 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-03 23:49 EST ------- Do we still actually want to keep lam around? I thought it had been essentially replaced in Fedora by another MPI implementation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 04:53:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 23:53:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040453.l144r9lD015883@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 05:12:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:12:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226181] Merge Review: nano In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040512.l145CBZp016955@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nano https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226181 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |220527 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 05:25:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:25:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222388] Review Request: gnucash - personal finance management In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040525.l145PRjJ017530@bugzilla.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: gnucash - personal finance management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222388 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-04 00:25 EST ------- make with -j33 yields... gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -I../.. -I../.. -I../.. -I../../lib/libc -I../../src -I../../src/core-utils -pthread -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -std=gnu99 -pthread -I/usr/lib/g-wrap/include -pthread -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -Wall -Wunused -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-pointer-sign -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -MT gw-gnc-module.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/gw-gnc-module.Tpo -c gw-gnc-module.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/gw-gnc-module.o gw-gnc-module.c:167: error: expected identifier or '(' before 'if' gw-gnc-module.c:183: warning: data definition has no type or storage class gw-gnc-module.c:183: warning: type defaults to 'int' in declaration of 'typespec' gw-gnc-module.c:183: error: conflicting types for 'typespec' So... no. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 05:29:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:29:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222388] Review Request: gnucash - personal finance management In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040529.l145Tm79017594@bugzilla.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: gnucash - personal finance management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222388 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-04 00:29 EST ------- Ah well, it would have been nice to have. I guess my test was on a dual core box, so smp_mflags was only 2... perhaps the higher number of jobs triggers something. ;( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 05:35:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040535.l145ZrCR017799@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-04 00:35 EST ------- This should be fun. First, the rpmlint issues: W: ncpfs no-url-tag Is there actually an upstream for this? It's probably best to at least add URL: http://ftp.cvut.cz/ncpfs/ W: ncpfs devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libncp.so W: ncpfs devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/ncp/obsolete/o_ndslib.h And many more .h files. These should all be placed into a separate -devel subpackage. E: ncpfs setuid-binary /usr/bin/ncplogin root 04755 E: ncpfs non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ncplogin 04755 A couple like these. I suppose these are necessary, but has anyone looked at the security issues? Just adding URL: and making the -devel packages would take care of all of the real rpmlint issues. More review coming tomorrow after sleep. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 06:16:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 01:16:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226022] Merge Review: libgpod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040616.l146GmcV018922@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libgpod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226022 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tmz at pobox.com ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-04 01:16 EST ------- Thanks Matthias, I'll look to do that after the review process. I simply wanted to make a note of why the functionality was disabled in this review so that anyone wondering will know it was intentional and necessary. I'm reassigning this to myself as the reviewer of the package, as per my understanding of how the merge reviews are to be handled. As I understand it, the bug should be assigned to the reviewer for the review and then reassigned to the maintainer afterward. If you feel I am in error for doing so, please let me know why. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 06:26:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 01:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040626.l146QfvD019916@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-04 01:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > E: bash postin-without-install-info /usr/share/info/bash.info.gz > E: bash postin-without-install-info /usr/share/info/bash.info.gz .. > Can all be ignored. Can not be ignored - Is a MUSTFIX. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 07:00:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:00:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 211336] Review Request: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040700.l14708vN023144@bugzilla.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: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets Alias: adeskets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211336 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(luya_tfz at thefinalz | |one.com) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-04 02:00 EST ------- Well, please upload a modified package, please!! Actually no progress is made since my comment 3, which is October of the last year. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 07:00:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:00:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040700.l1470rbi023192@bugzilla.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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(cgtobi at gmail.com) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-04 02:00 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 07:02:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222087] Review Request: pcmanx-gtk2 - Telnet client designed for BBS browsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040702.l1472Ai1023254@bugzilla.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: pcmanx-gtk2 - Telnet client designed for BBS browsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222087 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(sdl.web at gmail.com) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-04 02:01 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 07:17:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 189010] Review Request: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040717.l147HlKY023465@bugzilla.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: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189010 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(orion at cora.nwra.co | |m) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 07:19:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:19:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 190090] Review Request: ocrad In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040719.l147J31p023504@bugzilla.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: ocrad https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190090 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(krzyko at gmail.com) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 07:50:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:50:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223724] Review Request: fvwm - window manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040750.l147oYVC023859@bugzilla.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: fvwm - window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223724 ------- Additional Comments From lemenkov at gmail.com 2007-02-04 02:50 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Thanks for the excellent comments! Working... Could you please update your spec according to Patrice's proposals. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 09:01:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 04:01:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225668] Merge Review: cscope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040901.l14918kN026391@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cscope https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225668 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-04 04:00 EST ------- There should also not be a dot before the %{?dist}, since %{?dist} includes one already. The result of the extra dot is that this package just hit Rawhide: cscope-15.5-15.2..fc7.i386.rpm Note the double dot in the release name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 09:08:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 04:08:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226892] Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040908.l1498koi027339@bugzilla.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: kpowersave - kde power control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226892 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-04 04:08 EST ------- Thanks for the clarification. Review for release 2.fc6: * RPM name is OK * Source kpowersave-0.7.1.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * rpmlint looks OK * File list looks OK * Builds fine in mock * Works fine (36 automatic checks have been run by fedora-qa) APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 09:23:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 04:23:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222523] Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040923.l149NjXM017623@bugzilla.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:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222523 ------- Additional Comments From gilboad at gmail.com 2007-02-04 04:23 EST ------- Fixed. * Sun Feb 04 2007 - 0.9.2-6 - Fixed summery. - Remove redundant fileattr. Spec URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/gmrun.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/gmrun-0.9.2-6.src.rpm - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 09:23:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 04:23:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040923.l149Nj8g017513@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 ------- Additional Comments From gilboad at gmail.com 2007-02-04 04:23 EST ------- I'm a KISS kind of guy. If it's all the same to you, I rather keep the startup file as a patch/source. * Sun Feb 04 2007 - 1.2.30-11 - Remove .Xdefaults fix from startup. (reported upstream). - Replace buildroot with RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Spec URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/icewm.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/icewm-1.2.30-11.src.rpm - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 09:35:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 04:35:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222742] Review Request: fuse-smb - FUSE-Filesystem to fast and easy access remote resources via SMB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040935.l149Zx3I022939@bugzilla.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-smb - FUSE-Filesystem to fast and easy access remote resources via SMB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222742 mszpak at wp.pl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From mszpak at wp.pl 2007-02-04 04:35 EST ------- It took some time to get additional branches, but fuse-smb is now available in FC-5, FC-6 and a rawhide. Thanks for your help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 09:42:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 04:42:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702040942.l149gj5Z023199@bugzilla.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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 cgtobi at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(cgtobi at gmail.com) | ------- Additional Comments From cgtobi at gmail.com 2007-02-04 04:42 EST ------- Sorry, for the delay, but I'm in the middle of my exams. I will soon post new spec and SRPM for our release candidate or release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 10:11:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:11:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041011.l14AB7lA024266@bugzilla.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: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2007-02-04 05:11 EST ------- Yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 10:11:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:11:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041011.l14ABFMZ024286@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 05:11 EST ------- Ah, you're right, my mistake. That leaves us with: * RPM name is OK * Source lftp-3.5.9.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * BuildRequires: gettext is missing (required to build the translations) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) * Preserve timestamps when installing files (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: autoconf (by automake), automake (by libtool) Rpmlint output: Source RPM: W: lftp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 11, tab: line 1) rpmlint of lftp: W: lftp incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.5.9 3.5.9-1.fc6 E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9/proto-ftp.so ['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9', '/usr/lib'] E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9/proto-fish.so ['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9', '/usr/lib'] E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9/proto-http.so ['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9', '/usr/lib'] E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9/liblftp-network.so ['/usr/lib'] E: lftp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9/proto-sftp.so ['/usr/lib/lftp/3.5.9', '/usr/lib'] W: lftp conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/lftp.conf W: lftp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so W: lftp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so.0.0.0 E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblftp-jobs.so.0.0.0 E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so.0.0.0 E: lftp library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/liblftp-tasks.so.0.0.0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 10:31:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041031.l14AVQ93025454@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-04 05:31 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147296) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147296&action=view) new spec file with all issues fixed Hopefully all issues are fixed, only an entry in the changelog is missing ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 10:42:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:42:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225280] Merge Review: aspell-pl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041042.l14AgUVp026570@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225280 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-04 05:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > I'll be able to include your compression fix and roll a spec > without the other srcball change issue. Yeah, but in this case that compression fix can by applied thanks to a new tarball. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:08:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:08:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041108.l14B8kTi027717@bugzilla.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: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-04 06:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > Updated: > Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot.spec > SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot-1.5.1.4-3.src.rpm SRPM should be: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot-1.5.1.5-3.src.rpm Perhaps just a typo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:24:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:24:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041124.l14BOBfE028251@bugzilla.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: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 06:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Updated: > > Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot.spec > > SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot-1.5.1.4-3.src.rpm > > SRPM should be: > http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot-1.5.1.5-3.src.rpm > Perhaps just a typo. Yes it should , sorry however : this is wrong: --remove-category="KDE" \ --remove-category="Qt" \ --remove-category="Physics" \ --remove-category="Education" \ --remove-category="Math" \ I'll fix it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:27:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:27:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041127.l14BRV4D028352@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 06:27 EST ------- Hi Bill, I just tried a mock build from the spec at http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/, and it failed. + make DESTDIR=/var/tmp/chkconfig-1.3.32-1-root-mockbuild MANDIR=/usr/share/man install [ -d //sbin ] || mkdir -p //sbin [ -d //usr/sbin ] || mkdir -p //usr/sbin [ -d //usr/share/man ] || mkdir -p //usr/share/man [ -d //usr/share/man/man8 ] || mkdir -p //usr/share/man/man8 [ -d //usr/share/man/man5 ] || mkdir -p //usr/share/man/man5 [ -d //var/lib/alternatives ] || mkdir -p -m 755 //var/lib/alternatives [ -d //etc/alternatives ] || mkdir -p -m 755 //etc/alternatives install -m 755 chkconfig //sbin/chkconfig install: cannot remove `//sbin/chkconfig': Permission denied make: *** [install] Error 1 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.20880 (%install) So we can either stick with instroot, or replace instroot with DESTDIR in the Makefile. One issue is that DESTDIR is not passed through to the Makefile in the po subdirectory. Please let me know what you think. Ok, in reply to comment #2: > /etc, /usr/sbin are compiled in. Having it as a macro can't really help. They're defined as variables in the makefile. You could use make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILDROOT ALTDIR=%{_sysconfdir}/alternatives etc.. but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Unless we're planning on moving /etc to another directory in FC-8 ;-) > It's not really ever rebased between releases. Ok > No URL to have. Ok, the URL can be added after the merge, when the tarball is available from the Fedora repo. Thanks, Ruben -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:32:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:32:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041132.l14BWR7v028473@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-04 06:32 EST ------- Instead of "Requires: perl-String-CRC32" prefer: Requires: perl(String::CRC32) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:33:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:33:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041133.l14BX7BC028512@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:35:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:35:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226557] Merge Review: xfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041135.l14BZLdE028567@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226557 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cgoorah at yahoo.com.au ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 06:35 EST ------- There should be another alternative for using a pdf viewer. If I use KDE, having evince pull out as a pdf viewer would mean that i have to install another pdf viewer even kpdf is install by default. The spec needs work to be compatible with the usual FE guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:38:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:38:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041138.l14BcIha028645@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |varekova at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 06:38 EST ------- Review for release 1.2.2: * RPM name is OK * Source zip231.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Source zcrypt29.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Encoding should be UTF-8 * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) Minor: * The latest version is 2.32 Notes: * Please use {?dist} in the Release tag. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag for more info Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: zip summary-ended-with-dot A file compression and packaging utility compatible with PKZIP. E: zip tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: zip invalid-license distributable E: zip non-utf8-spec-file zip.spec W: zip mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 51, tab: line 47) rpmlint of zip: W: zip summary-ended-with-dot A file compression and packaging utility compatible with PKZIP. E: zip tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: zip invalid-license distributable -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:41:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226185] Merge Review: ncompress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041141.l14BfMjH028703@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncompress https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226185 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-04 06:41 EST ------- * /usr/bin => %{_bindir} * "install -p ..." to preserve time-stamps of any files which are not rebuild -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:45:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041145.l14BjX8p028835@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 ------- Additional Comments From rvokal at redhat.com 2007-02-04 06:45 EST ------- The source comes from OpenBSD cvs. No tarball available. I will look at these hopefully next week or the week after. Patches are welcome. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:45:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226539] Merge Review: which In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041145.l14BjlDU028846@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: which https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226539 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:48:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:48:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041148.l14BmJsO028940@bugzilla.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: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 06:48 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147298) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147298&action=view) failed build log failed build log -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:49:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041149.l14BnoNq028993@bugzilla.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: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 06:49 EST ------- the supplied liborigin from LabPlot is no more built, but however it calls for liborigin.la. liborigin.la isn't supplied by the liborigin that recently got approved. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223598 make[2]: *** No rule to make target `../liborigin/liborigin.la', needed by `LabPlot'. Stop. make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/BUILD/LabPlot-1.5.1.5/src' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:50:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:50:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041150.l14Boxuc029052@bugzilla.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: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn|223598 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:51:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:51:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223598] Review Request: liborigin - Library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041151.l14BpNJZ029081@bugzilla.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: liborigin - Library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223598 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|221027 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 11:54:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 06:54:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226539] Merge Review: which In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041154.l14Bs75h029165@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: which https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226539 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |than at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 06:53 EST ------- Review for release 8: * RPM name is OK * Source which-2.16.tar.gz is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) COPYING is included in the source, please add it to %doc * Please change hardcoded paths with macro's * Preserve timestamps when installing files * Please consider using {?dist} in the Release Tag (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag) Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: which summary-ended-with-dot Displays where a particular program in your path is located. W: which strange-permission which-2.sh 0775 W: which redundant-prefix-tag W: which prereq-use /sbin/install-info W: which prereq-use dev Use Requires(post) and Requires(preun). What's the prereq dev for? rpmlint of which: W: which summary-ended-with-dot Displays where a particular program in your path is located. W: which conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/which-2.sh E: which executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/which-2.sh E: which executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/which-2.sh 0755 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:03:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:03:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041203.l14C3aEc029451@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-04 07:03 EST ------- MUSTFIX: Missing SMP flags: if there is a known problem, a comment should be added in the spec file (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) You should not use the Packager tag (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#tags) Does not build in mock (missing qmake), you should add a Buildrequire for qt-devel. Minor: BuildRoot does not follow the guidelines (should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:09:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:09:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041209.l14C9A3J029727@bugzilla.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: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 07:09 EST ------- Easy Fix: chitlesh(SPECS)[1]$rpmlint /home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/SRPMS/gshutdown-0.2-1.rc1.src.rpm W: gshutdown mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 2) You should add timestamps to your make install: %{__make} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL="%{__install} -p" install version labeling: Version: 0.2 Release: 1.rc1%{?dist} you should pretty much do: Version: 0.2rc1 Release: 1%{?dist} You can dropped explicit BR: BuildRequires: gtk2-devel, libglade2-devel Since chitlesh(devel)[0]$rpm -qR libglade2-devel /usr/bin/python gtk2-devel >= 2.5.0 libglade-2.0.so.0 [...] libglade2-devel already requires gtk2-devel You can dropped this as well --add-category X-Fedora \ The file NEWS is useless, you also dropped it as its contents refers to ChangeLog Also there is no use of writing explicit requires such: Requires: libglade >= 0.17, libnotify >= 0.4.2 yum will search for them automatically. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:13:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:13:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041213.l14CDV0Z029884@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-04 07:13 EST ------- OK source files match upstream: 63f7859e44f914e703ccc7b9e4f9fdd8809add1850365f6186aa6df6deabc2c0 dcraw-8.53.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK package installs properly OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires are sane OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. MUST FIX: BAD rpmlint is NOT silent. W: dcraw summary-ended-with-dot A tool for decoding raw image data from digital cameras. BAD %find_lang macro is not used for the locale files both are rather minors and a patch for the spec file is attached -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:14:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:14:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225754] Merge Review: finger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041214.l14CEQ82029937@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 rvokal at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From rvokal at redhat.com 2007-02-04 07:14 EST ------- All of the above except of URL which is unknown should be fixed in finger-0.17-34. Also I've realized that dist tag was missing in the spec. Would be great to check for that as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:15:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:15:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041215.l14CFaYw030006@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-04 07:15 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147299) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147299&action=view) fix the discussed issues in the spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:15:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:15:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041215.l14CFleR030021@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:16:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:16:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041216.l14CGk6W030091@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:20:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:20:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041220.l14CK0X1030175@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |karsten at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 07:19 EST ------- Hi Karsten, Review for release 12: * RPM name is OK * Source wget-1.10.2.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Source wget-1.11-de.po is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK * Config files of wget looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * BuildRequires: perl should not be included (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) COPYING is included in the source, just add it to %doc Notes: * Use Requires(post) and Requires(preun) instead of Prereq * Honour %{optflags} when building * Preserve timestamps when installing Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: wget summary-ended-with-dot A utility for retrieving files using the HTTP or FTP protocols. W: wget unversioned-explicit-provides webclient W: wget prereq-use /sbin/install-info W: wget macro-in-%changelog xx W: wget mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 65, tab: line 48) rpmlint of wget: W: wget summary-ended-with-dot A utility for retrieving files using the HTTP or FTP protocols. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:20:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:20:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041220.l14CKdSK030225@bugzilla.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: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 07:20 EST ------- And also see whether the following has some negative influence on its usuability or not: chitlesh(SPECS)[1]$gshutdown (gshutdown:27870): Gtk-CRITICAL **: gtk_tree_row_reference_new: assertion `GTK_IS_TREE_MODEL (model)' failed (gshutdown:27870): Gtk-CRITICAL **: gtk_cell_view_set_displayed_row: assertion `GTK_IS_TREE_MODEL (cell_view->priv->model)' failed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:25:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:25:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041225.l14CPGP0030392@bugzilla.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: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-04 07:25 EST ------- > you should pretty much do: > Version: 0.2rc1 > Release: 1%{?dist} Certainly not. But: Version: 0.2 Release: 0.1.rc1%{?dist} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:27:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:27:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041227.l14CRSwU030464@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dan at danny.cz Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-04 07:27 EST ------- should be quick as it is coming from Extras originally :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:27:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:27:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041227.l14CRXdX030481@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From jafo-redhat at tummy.com 2007-02-04 07:27 EST ------- Thanks for the review. New version addressing these is at: Spec URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin-0.3-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:27:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:27:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041227.l14CRvOD030504@bugzilla.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: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-04 07:27 EST ------- > Requires: libglade >= 0.17, libnotify >= 0.4.2 Make sure these are not caught by rpmbuild automatically. Query the binary rpms and look out for the dependencies on the library sonames. Avoid dependencies on package names wherever possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:31:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041231.l14CVVi2030573@bugzilla.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: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 07:31 EST ------- you should make use of GTK+ icon cache http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda %post touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %postun touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:41:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:41:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041241.l14CfLCb030821@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-04 07:41 EST ------- Is fedora-release-notes really required by this package? http://martin.hates-software.com/2007/02/03/fb463e68.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:42:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:42:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225717] Merge Review: ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041242.l14Cgr4d030934@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225717 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-04 07:42 EST ------- Missing "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" at beginning of %install section. > install doc/ed.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1 Here, you could use "install -p -m0644" to preserve time-stamps and set the file access permissions, and then spare yourself the separate %attr(0644,root,root) in the %files section. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:45:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:45:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225754] Merge Review: finger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041245.l14CjeOi031142@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 07:45 EST ------- Ah, great. Do you have a url for the new version? It's not avaliable on cvs.fedora.redhat.com yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:46:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:46:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041246.l14CkoNN031212@bugzilla.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: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 07:46 EST ------- Mock has failed, you have a missing BuildRequires desktop-file-install the next time you submit a package, try to mock the package :) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:47:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:47:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041247.l14ClmXM031280@bugzilla.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: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 07:47 EST ------- typo: it's desktop-file-utils and not desktop-file-install -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:48:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:48:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041248.l14CmLJp031326@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:48:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:48:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041248.l14CmSdw031342@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-04 07:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > /etc, /usr/sbin are compiled in. Having it as a macro can't really help. This shouldn't be so. Can't that be corrected? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:50:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:50:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225038] Review Request: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text editor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041250.l14Codhq031478@bugzilla.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: medit - Another very nice Gtk+ text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225038 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-04 07:50 EST ------- > contents of /usr/share/mime/ and subdirs are highly > questionable and need a very close look Please do investigate as why your package includes files which belong elsewhere or are generated at run-time: -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/mime/XMLnamespaces -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/mime/aliases -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/mime/globs -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/mime/magic -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/mime/subclasses Also on your system, these files do exist already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:54:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:54:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041254.l14Cs988031685@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |varekova at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 07:54 EST ------- Review for release 2.2.1: * RPM name is OK * Source unzip552.tar.gz is the same as upstream * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Encoding should be UTF-8 * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * Preserve timestamps with cp -p when installing files Notes: * Please consider using {?dist} (fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag) I got a warning during building, is this expected? ln: creating hard link `./Makefile' to `unix/Makefile': File exists Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: unzip summary-ended-with-dot A utility for unpacking zip files. E: unzip tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: unzip non-utf8-spec-file unzip.spec rpmlint of unzip: W: unzip summary-ended-with-dot A utility for unpacking zip files. E: unzip tag-not-utf8 %changelog -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 12:56:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 07:56:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041256.l14CujUS031835@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:06:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:06:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041306.l14D6URc032119@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-04 08:06 EST ------- No need to mention in the Changelog who suggested what, especially when dealing with errors :) I'll review that. Note that I cannot actually test the program because I do not have a compatible phone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:07:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:07:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041307.l14D72fQ032154@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |twaugh at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 08:06 EST ------- Review for release 26.2.2: * RPM name is OK * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * BuildRequires: perl should not be included (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions) * Preserve timestamps when installing files * Consider using {?dist} in the Release tag Notes: * -Wall is already in RPM_OPT_FLAGS Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: unix2dos summary-not-capitalized unix2dos - UNIX to DOS text file format converter Don't use the name in the Summary W: unix2dos invalid-license distributable W: unix2dos no-url-tag W: unix2dos macro-in-%changelog description W: unix2dos macro-in-%changelog build W: unix2dos macro-in-%changelog description rpmlint of unix2dos-2.2-26: W: unix2dos summary-not-capitalized unix2dos - UNIX to DOS text file format converter W: unix2dos invalid-license distributable W: unix2dos no-url-tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:07:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:07:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041307.l14D7hMX032190@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:15:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225754] Merge Review: finger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041315.l14DFCEd032403@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 ------- Additional Comments From rvokal at redhat.com 2007-02-04 08:15 EST ------- It's in rawhide, built right now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:19:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041319.l14DJV5G032494@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dan at danny.cz |alexl at redhat.com CC| |dan at danny.cz Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-04 08:19 EST ------- OK source files match upstream: 930ef7de15eb028c1cdbfe3f1170aaa1d5b0b4d45a8fa496d944216e155122c2 lcms-1.15.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK package installs properly OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires are sane: OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, ldconfig is run. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK scriptlets are present and they are sane. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel subpackage. OK pkgconfig filesin devel subpackage. OK no libtool .la are packaged. OK not a GUI app. MUST FIX: BAD license field does NOT match the actual license. The License tag contains LGPL, but the license in the COPYING file and in the source files headers is different. The Web say it is MIT license. SHOULD FIX: BAD rpmlint is NOT silent. I: lcms checking E: lcms zero-length /usr/share/doc/lcms-1.15/ChangeLog the ChangeLog could be omited I: python-lcms checking W: python-lcms summary-ended-with-dot Python interface to LittleCMS. Also a newer version 1.16 was already released. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:20:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:20:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041320.l14DKZtg032543@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-04 08:20 EST ------- In reply to comment #3: >From the comments in the spec, the reason for those is that install-info, which is in the 'info' package, requires bash. So, how can it install info before it installs bash? You run into a looping dependency and it doesnt work. I'd love to hear a more clever way to get around it, but the scriptlets in the spec seemed the solution to me. Do you see any better way? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:23:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:23:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041323.l14DNa3K032646@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-04 08:23 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147300) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147300&action=view) patch to fix the discussed issues -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:24:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:24:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227230] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041324.l14DO21b032665@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227230 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood at gmail.com 2007-02-04 08:24 EST ------- Just noticed a missing Requires: tetex. Will add and update soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:28:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:28:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225742] Merge Review: expat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041328.l14DSX2U000361@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225742 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-04 08:28 EST ------- Thanks for the review. Fixed in -10: - Summary trailing dot removed - switch to preferred BuildRoot Won't fix: - %makeinstall is necessary for this non-DESTDIR-aware Makefile - dist tag use is not mandatory - explicit BuildRequires is a good thing - rpm automatically adds correct Requires for scriptlet interpreters - yes, static libraries are necessary for the static build of rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:48:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225754] Merge Review: finger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041348.l14Dm4Nq000892@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 08:47 EST ------- Perfect, I don't see any blockers. But please consider preserving timestamps with install -p or cp -p when installing files in the next version. This package is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 13:53:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 08:53:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226571] Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041353.l14DrpkJ001336@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226571 ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-04 08:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Believe me, you do _not_ want to install desktop files for xeyes and friends. > I have complained about that wording in the packaging guidelines before. /me fully agrees that shipping desktop files for that stuff would be really stupid -- I probably should have been more clear and should just have quoted the second sentence from the guidelines that is : "If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation."" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:03:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041403.l14E3BKR002048@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 ------- Additional Comments From sgrubb at redhat.com 2007-02-04 09:03 EST ------- 1. Where is the upstream for this version? IBM has it. 2. our pal rpmlint says: >Should add URL tag, perhaps: >http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=130497 I don't know where IBM distributes it from. I work directly with them on CC evals and the tarball is emailed to me. >Setup should have -q on it? I suppose it could. Doesn't hurt anything either way. >Why aren't you using %configure? In my experience, some packages will not build with %configure. We might be able to change it. >W: amtu macro-in-%changelog clean will change >W: amtu macro-in-%changelog files will change >E: amtu non-readable /usr/bin/amtu 0750 >E: amtu non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/amtu 0750 > >Why is this 750? Because it needs to be. It requires privileges to run. If it were available to accounts that could run it and fail, the audit requirements are higher. >W: amtu wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/amtu-1.0.4/AMTUHowTo.txt > >This should be fixed to not have doc line endings... Attach a patch please. >3. Why the compiler setting stuff in build? Because it requires special handling between the arches and to follow the guidelines issued internally to Red Hat. If you have redhat-rpm-config installed, there are build flags that get picked up this way. >Also, can you use %{smp_mflags} ? why? >4. Is the "Requires: audit >= 1.1.2" required? Looks like rpm picks up the >libaudit requirement... Yes, but there are different versions of audit and that one has the api that we want. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:05:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225742] Merge Review: expat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041405.l14E5Cq6002215@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225742 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 09:05 EST ------- Hi Joe, > - %makeinstall is necessary for this non-DESTDIR-aware Makefile Agreed, from the guidelines: Fedora's RPM includes a %makeinstall macro but it must NOT be used when make install DESTDIR=% {buildroot} will work. So in this case it's not a blocker. > - dist tag use is not mandatory That's right > - explicit BuildRequires is a good thing True. > - rpm automatically adds correct Requires for scriptlet interpreters True as well. > - yes, static libraries are necessary for the static build of rpm There's no official policy on the inclusion of static libraries as far as I know, so this is no blocker either. This package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:05:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:05:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041405.l14E5Cuh002222@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-04 09:05 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147302) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147302&action=view) Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4.fc7 Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4 on FC-devel i386. * Currently I cannot figure out why mockbuild log says: ----------------------------------------------- BLT: no Tcl/Tk magic uses the BLT package to create a tree diagram of the cell hierarchy in a design. Without it, this option is unavailable. Consider installing the BLT package. ----------------------------------------------- * icon cache updating ----------------------------------------------- %post touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %postun touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : -------------------------------------------------- - I don't think this is needed because this package installs no icon image files into the directory. * rpmlint says.. -------------------------------------------------- W: magic hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/magic/sys/.magicrc E: magic script-without-shebang /usr/lib/magic/tcl/console.tcl -------------------------------------------------- * What is the formar file? * I think the latter is surely the issue. * Please consider to make the log of compile more precise, not just telling us: -------------------------------------------------- --- compiling cmwind/CMWcmmnds.o --- compiling cmwind/CMWundo.o --- compiling cmwind/CMWrgbhsv.o --- linking libcmwind.o -------------------------------------------------- I cannot find what is actually done here. * Documentation - main package contains the files under /usr/lib/magic/doc, which seem to be the same files in -doc file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:05:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:05:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041405.l14E5JmX002251@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-04 09:05 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - license ( GPL ) OK, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, sha1sum 12dff499f7a29a36e7b7a67d3260d470280485dc moto4lin-0.3.tar.bz - package compiles on FC6/x86_64 - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for separated -doc - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no .la, static, .pc files MUSTFIX - the source rpm should retain the date of the upstream source - the binary rpm should include as %doc the license file (it is included in the tar.bz2 as GPL-2) - %prep does not need to include cleaning the buildroot - the program is a GUI, so acording to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop a moto4lin.desktop file should be included in the rpm. Otherwise a comment with your explanation of not providing one should be included in the spec file Suggestion - It is unusual for a spec to include the comments about the macros. If you definitely need them, feel free to let them in, but otherwise they should be deleted. NEEDINFO - as far as I can tell, the program does start in FC6. Without a compatible phone I cannot say if it actually works. The comment on the main page of the moto4lin wiki states that the 0.3 version does not work on x86_64 and recommends either patching it or using the more recent svn version. Could you please elaborate on this aspect? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:08:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:08:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041408.l14E8xjq002494@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-04 09:08 EST ------- "- the source rpm should retain the date of the upstream source" ==> the date of upstream tar.bz2 should be preserved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:32:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:32:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041432.l14EWggi003472@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-04 09:32 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Instead of "Requires: perl-String-CRC32" prefer: > > Requires: perl(String::CRC32) A even better solution would be to drop this explicit requirement as rpmbuild has no problem in detecting and adding it to the requirements list. jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:42:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:42:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225290] Merge Review: attr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041442.l14EgZka003712@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: attr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225290 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dan at danny.cz Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:43:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:43:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225290] Merge Review: attr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041443.l14EhKbB003755@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: attr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225290 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:45:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226657] Merge Review: xrestop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041445.l14Ej1hK003815@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xrestop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226657 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-04 09:45 EST ------- I would be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:52:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:52:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225742] Merge Review: expat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041452.l14Eqi1V003974@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225742 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-04 09:52 EST ------- %{?dist} is no must? Since when if true or did I misunderstand something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:52:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:52:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041452.l14Eqwgi004002@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-04 09:52 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > FWIW, I disagree with the purging of "Duplicate BuildRequires" that seems to > be proposed. If the configure script explicitly checks for glib2, it is a good > idea to have an explicit BR for glib2-devel, even if pango-devel happens to pull > it in already. Agreed, the comments in the minor section of comment #1 aren't considered blockers for the packages approval. They are merely suggestion of things to look at. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:53:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:53:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 191036] Review Request: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041453.l14ErfF6004033@bugzilla.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: libmp4v2 a library for handling the mp4 container format https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191036 rpm at greysector.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net 2007-02-04 09:53 EST ------- 1. package meets naming and packaging guidelines. 2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. 3. dist tag is present. 4. build root is correct, but not the recommended version -> please add %(%{__id_u} -n) at the end before importing 5. license field matches the actual license. 6. license is open source-compatible (MPL 1.1). License text included in package. However, the following file has no license header: libmp4v2-1.5.0.1/atom_ohdr.cpp Please poke upstream to fix that. 7. source files match upstream: 90eb2b0940ebe02ef81b7a60530beaee libmp4v2-1.5.0.1.tar.bz2 4b4abb862b079a7e296c891d96faebc9 mklibmp4v2-r51.tar.bz2 8. latest version is being packaged. 9. BuildRequires are proper. 10. package builds in mock (fc7/x86_64). 11. rpmlint is silent. 12. final provides and requires are sane: libmp4v2 = 1.5.0.1-3.fc7 = /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmp4v2.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libmp4v2-devel = 1.5.0.1-3.fc7 = libmp4v2 = 1.5.0.1-3.fc7 libmp4v2.so.0()(64bit) 13. shared libraries are present and ldconfig is called in %post(un). 14. package is not relocatable. 15. owns the directories it creates. 16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. 17. no duplicates in %files. 18. file permissions are appropriate. 19. %clean is present. 20. %check is not present, no testsuite. 21. no scriptlets present. 22. code, not content. 23. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. 24. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 25. headers present in -devel package only. 26. no pkgconfig files. 27. no libtool .la droppings. 28. not a GUI app. 29. not a web app. 4. and 6. need work, but are not blockers, so APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 14:56:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 09:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225684] Merge Review: devhelp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041456.l14Eumsm004156@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: devhelp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225684 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:01:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:01:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226657] Merge Review: xrestop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041501.l14F1g0O004295@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xrestop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226657 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |sandmann at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-04 10:01 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 5ff774ff9cbb5997f0fb68e712dee302 xrestop-0.2.tar.gz 5ff774ff9cbb5997f0fb68e712dee302 xrestop-0.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. See below - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 0 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Buildroot should be the standard one. 2. rpmlint says: E: xrestop zero-length /usr/share/doc/xrestop-0.2/NEWS Drop the NEWS file? Also the INSTALL file is the generic autotools one, and should also be dropped. 3. Should use the dist tag? 4. The latest version is 0.4 upstream. I think you can then also drop the man patch as this is fixed upstream. 5. There's some odd # SUBDIRS= comments that should get removed... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:07:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041507.l14F7MOS004434@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-04 10:07 EST ------- Here's the full review; fixing the above issues and the buildroot should be all that's necessary. * source files match upstream: 2837046046bcdb46d77a80c1d17dbfd15e878700e879edab4cda9f080e0337f9 ncpfs-2.2.6.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. O dist tag is not present (not required) X build root is not correct; should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %makeinstall is not used. * package builds in mock. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: /sbin/ldconfig ipxutils libncp.so.2.3 libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.17) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.18) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.INTERNAL) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.0.19) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.1) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.4) = libncp.so.2.3 libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.17) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.2.2.0.18) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.INTERNAL) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS.MPILIB) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.0.19) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.1) libncp.so.2.3(NCPFS_2.2.4) ncpfs = 2.2.6-6 (ipxutils provides only ipxutils = 2.2.6-6) * %check is present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries are present; ldconfig called as necessary. X unversioned .so files should be in -devel subpackage. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets present are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. X headers present and should be in -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:08:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:08:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041508.l14F8FGG004480@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226638 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:09:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:09:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041509.l14F9Dw6004552@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226638 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fedora at leemhuis.info -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:16:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:16:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041516.l14FG6HG004781@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 jwilson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |esandeen at redhat.com, | |jwilson at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-04 10:16 EST ------- We've also got one of the XFS developers who was interested in taking this package over... Eric? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:17:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:17:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226039] Merge Review: libraw1394 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041517.l14FH6xt004846@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libraw1394 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226039 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-04 10:17 EST ------- Not quite everything else was okay, the buildroot wasn't correct. I've fixed that and the macros in the changelog though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:20:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:20:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041520.l14FKd94004966@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-04 10:20 EST ------- In reply to comment #3: >I don't know where IBM distributes it from. I work directly with them on CC >evals and the tarball is emailed to me. Could you perhaps ping them to update the sourceforge site with the latest? Then it would be easy to check against upstream. >>Setup should have -q on it? > >I suppose it could. Doesn't hurt anything either way. True, just more in line with all the other packages... >>Why aren't you using %configure? > >In my experience, some packages will not build with %configure. We might be >able to change it. Can you try and do so? >>Why is this 750? > >Because it needs to be. It requires privileges to run. If it were available to >accounts that could run it and fail, the audit requirements are higher. Sounds reasonable. >>This should be fixed to not have doc line endings... > >Attach a patch please. You can do it in the spec... just add: %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' AMTUHowTo.txt >>3. Why the compiler setting stuff in build? > >Because it requires special handling between the arches and to follow the >guidelines issued internally to Red Hat. If you have redhat-rpm-config >installed, there are build flags that get picked up this way. It seems like if that was the case you would want to just override the RPM_OPT_FLAGS in those places (ie, in rpm or macro files). >>Also, can you use %{smp_mflags} ? > >why? Indeed this is a small package and it might not be worth it, but if it works, why not? Would save a bit of build time. Agreed on everything else... When you have updated rawhide/cvs, let me know and reassign me on this bug, and I will be happy to check over changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:24:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041524.l14FO88t005130@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu |mitr at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:31:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:31:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041531.l14FVrfW005363@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:33:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:33:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225713] Merge Review: dvgrab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041533.l14FXGFA005419@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dvgrab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225713 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-04 10:33 EST ------- Build root and URL fixed in cvs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:34:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:34:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041534.l14FY6An005496@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-04 10:34 EST ------- > Requires: python, %{python_sitearch} The automatic "python(abi) = ..." dep should suffice. Path deps make Yum download the extra filelists, which is unnecessary in this case. > touch ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{python_sitearch}/lcms.py{c,o} > %ghost %{python_sitearch}/lcms.py? We no longer %ghost compiled Python files. > %{_libdir}/*.a Static libs can go, right? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:36:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:36:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225290] Merge Review: attr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041536.l14Fa1DO005551@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: attr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225290 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dan at danny.cz |twoerner at redhat.com CC| |dan at danny.cz Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-04 10:35 EST ------- OK source files match upstream: 397f565e427e9237537d10345a3b1b09a5f988c4b4035e3bfc1ff5260f20a11d attr_2.4.32-1.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK package installs properly OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires looks sane. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, ldconfig is run. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK scriptlets are present and they are sane. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no libtool .la are packaged. OK not a GUI app. MUST FIX: BAD headers and .so are in devel subpackage, but the dependency on the lib subpackage is not correct SHOULD FIX: BAD dist tag is NOT present. BAD not suggested build root is used. BAD rpmlint is NOT silent. I: attr checking W: attr summary-ended-with-dot Utilities for managing filesystem extended attributes. W: attr prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig W: attr prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig these are found automagically W: attr macro-in-%changelog defattr macro is not escaped I: libattr-devel checking W: libattr-devel no-version-dependency-on libattr 2.4.32 see MUST FIX W: libattr-devel summary-ended-with-dot Extended attribute static libraries and headers. W: libattr-devel symlink-should-be-relative /usr/lib/libattr.so /lib/libattr.so could be linked from ../../%{_lib}/libattr.so I: libattr checking W: libattr summary-ended-with-dot Dynamic library for extended attribute support. W: libattr no-documentation You could also use %doc macro in the %files section instead of %{_datadir}/doc/... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:37:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225290] Merge Review: attr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041537.l14FbGTu005638@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: attr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225290 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-04 10:37 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147305) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147305&action=view) fix the discussed issues in the spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:38:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:38:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041538.l14FcCbX005724@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226638 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fedora at leemhuis.info |ajackson at redhat.com CC| |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-04 10:38 EST ------- * I'm a bit unsure about this package in general -- is it really still needed? FC5 has modular X already, and we don't support from older releases anymore iirc. RHEL5 should have this package, too, and RHEL6 probably should not need it anymore, too. * why doesn't this package simply own some of the other important directorys like /usr/lib/xorg/modules/ * Stuff like "cat > "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/${UPGRADE_CMD}" <<'EOF'" is disliked; it should live in a separate file that it included as source * Quoting the spec {{{ # NOTE: Do not replace these with _libdir or _includedir macros, they are # intentionally explicit. }}} Nice, the comment helps -- but it would help more if the reason why its "intentionally explicit" would be mentioned ;-) Ohh, it's explained later in the spec; Not importatn, but maybe mention in once at the top of the spec file properly might be the best * rpmlint: rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-filesystem-7.1-2.fc7.noarch.rpm W: xorg-x11-filesystem incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.1-2.fc6 7.1-2.fc7 -> simply avoid mention the disttag in the changelog W: xorg-x11-filesystem invalid-license MIT/X11 -> Would be MIT, but what actualy is licenced under MIT/X11 ? W: xorg-x11-filesystem no-documentation -> acceptable E: xorg-x11-filesystem standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/lib/X11 -> owned by package "filesystem", so not needed W: xorg-x11-filesystem dangerous-command-in-%pre rm rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-filesystem-7.1-2.fc7.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-filesystem invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/X11" E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11 E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11 E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11 E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11 E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11 -> accpetable in this case W: xorg-x11-filesystem no-%build-section -> accpetable in this case Stopping reviewing here for now until it becomes clear this is still needed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:41:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:41:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041541.l14FfRbV005825@bugzilla.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: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2007-02-04 10:41 EST ------- Oddly enough, it built fine on my FC rawhide x86 box in and out of mock. Do you want to fix the problems and I can review it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:41:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:41:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226640] Merge Review: xorg-x11-font-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041541.l14FfWG3005845@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-font-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226640 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fedora at leemhuis.info Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:44:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:44:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041544.l14FiM1R005946@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 ------- Additional Comments From esandeen at redhat.com 2007-02-04 10:44 EST ------- Sure I'll pick up xfsprogs and should try to get xfsdump in from extras too, I suppose. Jarod, expect questions from me :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:49:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:49:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225684] Merge Review: devhelp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041549.l14FnCaI006109@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: devhelp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225684 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |mbarnes at redhat.com CC| |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-04 10:49 EST ------- Good: * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * All paths begin with macros * Desktop entry is fine * All directories are owned by this or other packages * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Builds in Mock fine. Must Fix Items: * Missing URL . http://developer.imendio.com/projects/devhelp * Source URL isn't canonical. http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/%{name}/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.bz2 * rpmlint error: E: devhelp postin-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libdevhelp-1.so.0.0.0 E: devhelp postun-without-ldconfig /usr/lib/libdevhelp-1.so.0.0.0 Minor things to look at, not considered blockers: * rpmlint error: W: devhelp-devel summary-ended-with-dot Library to embed Devhelp in other applications. * Doesn't use preferred buildroot. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1 * Unnecessary Requires on gnome-vfs2, gtk2, libglade2, and libgnomeui. The BR on the devel packages should pull these in automatically. http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/devhelp-0.12-10.fc7.src.rpm/result/build.log * Duplicate BuildRequires: glib2-devel (by gtk2-devel), libglade2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), gtk2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), GConf2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), gnome-vfs2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel) * Could use the '-disable-static' configure flag, and not even bother building the static libs. * Could just use 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' to clean the install section for consistency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:50:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:50:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041550.l14FoMn8006173@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-04 10:50 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this package, look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:58:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:58:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225715] Merge Review: echo-icon-theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041558.l14Fwkxf006442@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: echo-icon-theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225715 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |davidz at redhat.com CC| |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-04 10:58 EST ------- Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages * Builds fine in mock. Must Fix: * Should be Requires(postun), not Requires(postub). * rpmlint errors: W: echo-icon-theme macro-in-%changelog _datadir W: echo-icon-theme macro-in-%changelog build W: echo-icon-theme macro-in-%changelog buildroot This should be an easy one to fix. Just %% the macros in the ChangeLog. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 15:59:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 10:59:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225742] Merge Review: expat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041559.l14Fxqpn006492@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225742 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 10:59 EST ------- Uh, look trought the list of MUST items in the Review Guidelines... nothing there. >From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag: Do I Have To Use the Dist Tag? No. It is documented and standardized so that maintainers who wish to use it can do so, but it is not mandatory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:02:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:02:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225812] Merge Review: gnome-audio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041602.l14G2EO5006581@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-audio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225812 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:05:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:05:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225713] Merge Review: dvgrab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041605.l14G5fDm006670@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dvgrab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225713 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ed at eh3.com |jwilson at redhat.com CC| |ed at eh3.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-04 11:05 EST ------- I don't see anything else so its APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:08:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:08:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226271] Merge Review: perl-Net-IP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041608.l14G8fE3006735@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Net-IP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226271 ville.skytta at iki.fi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rnorwood at redhat.com CC| |ville.skytta at iki.fi Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-04 11:08 EST ------- Just a couple of small issues that can be fixed directly in CVS, no need for a review roundtrip: - Source URL is broken (missing slash), should be "ftp://cpan...", not "ftp:/cpan..." - Change "-type d -depth" to "-depth -type d" in %install to avoid a (discarded) warning from find(1). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:13:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:13:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041613.l14GDnPf006984@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |varekova at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-04 11:13 EST ------- OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 0 open bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. This version doesn't seem to be available upstream. There is a 1.3.8 and a 1.3.10. Perhaps upgrading to 1.3.10 should be the thing to do? Was 1.3.9 removed due to some problem? 2. Buildroot should be the standard one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:19:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:19:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041619.l14GJba8007090@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:24:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:24:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225661] Merge Review: createrepo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041624.l14GO0UK007310@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: createrepo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225661 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-04 11:23 EST ------- >From an email by Michael Schwendt regarding the directory and its files: > Even better: > > %{_datadir}/%{name}/ > > The extra slash at the end makes it clear that you want to include > a directory and not an ordinary file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:24:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:24:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225684] Merge Review: devhelp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041624.l14GOQ3q007330@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: devhelp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225684 mbarnes at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From mbarnes at redhat.com 2007-02-04 11:24 EST ------- Fixed in devhelp-0.13-2.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:25:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:25:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041625.l14GPbmD007383@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |twaugh at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 11:25 EST ------- Hi there, Review for release 5: * RPM name is OK * Source tree-1.5.0.tgz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Package is marked as relocatable, please check. (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#RelocatablePackages) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) Just add LICENSE from the source to %doc * Preserve timestamps when you install files Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: tree summary-ended-with-dot A utility which displays a tree view of the contents of directories. W: tree hardcoded-prefix-tag /usr W: tree hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/tree-root rpmlint of tree: W: tree summary-ended-with-dot A utility which displays a tree view of the contents of directories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:28:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:28:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226813] Merge Review: zsh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041628.l14GSXpA007439@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226813 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-04 11:28 EST ------- I would be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:47:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:47:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041647.l14GlgDP008054@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 16:48:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:48:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041648.l14GmLSs008083@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |rstrode at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-04 11:48 EST ------- Initial comments: * The README file mentions different version requirements than in the spec file: "GtkSourceView requires GTK+-2.8.x, libxml2 2.5.x and libgnomeprint 2.8.x." So you should change gtk2_version to 2.8.0, have a libgnomeprint_version macro that says 2.8.0 also and change the present 2.7.1 requirements to use that instead, and perhaps also add a versioned requirement for libxml2-devel (2.5.0). * The description and the summary fields are only different in one word ("with"). Please add more description to the description field. * Give full URL of the tarball in the Source0 line. * Use "make %{?_smp_mflags}" instead of "make" in %build. * There is an empty %doc line in the files section. Include at least AUTHORS, ChangeLog, COPYING, NEWS, and README. (blocker) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 17:13:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:13:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225658] Merge Review: cpuspeed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041713.l14HDYkY008795@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpuspeed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225658 jwilson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- | ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-04 12:13 EST ------- Okay, I think I *almost* have this one sorted out... I've got the package building on rawhide x86_64 using most of our stock optflags, save -fexceptions, which is the one that was causing the build to fail when switching from CFLAGS= to COPTS= (note that that stock Makefile is set up to pass -fno- exceptions). I've tweaked things a bit further so the -z bits are only passed during linking, so as to suppress some warning messages. ----8<---- + make 'CFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fno-exceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -fpie -pie' LDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,relro,-z,now gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fno-exceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp- buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -fpie -pie -c -O2 cpuspeed.cc cpuspeed.cc:121: warning: non-local variable ' speeds [16]' uses anonymous type cpuspeed.cc: In function 'int main(unsigned int, char**)': cpuspeed.cc:810: warning: ignoring return value of 'int daemon(int, int)', declared with attribute warn_unused_result gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fno-exceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp- buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -fpie -pie -Wl,-z,relro,-z,now cpuspeed.o -o cpuspeed + exit 0 ----8<---- This results in built packages that, at a glance, seem to be functioning correctly. Unfortunately, I'm still winding up with no source in the debuginfo package for some reason that is beyond me at the moment... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 17:14:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:14:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225658] Merge Review: cpuspeed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041714.l14HEXFg008823@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpuspeed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225658 jwilson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jwilson at redhat.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 17:31:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:31:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041731.l14HV2I1009227@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-04 12:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > In reply to comment #3: > > From the comments in the spec, the reason for those is that install-info, which > is in the 'info' package, requires bash. So, how can it install info before it > installs bash? You run into a looping dependency and it doesnt work. This is a problem in bootstrapping bash/info - This only is a problem for bootstrapping (building from scratch), but is not much of importance to the end-users. The lack of install-info inside of the rpm breaks each and every end-user's installation, therefore it is a MUST. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 17:38:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:38:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041738.l14HcgXg009436@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-04 12:38 EST ------- Also: o The unversioned-explicit-provides webclient is ok in this case - web browsers (mozilla, lynx, etc.) have this as well. o the prereq-use /sbin/install-info should be fixed as described here: - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#info o I think: %find_lang %name Should be: %find_lang %{name} (consistent macro usage) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 17:41:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:41:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225710] Merge Review: dtach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041741.l14Hf2Mh009556@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dtach https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225710 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |lhh at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 17:43:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:43:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225812] Merge Review: gnome-audio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041743.l14HhTTv009657@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-audio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225812 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |alexl at redhat.com CC| |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-04 12:43 EST ------- Good: * Source URL is canonical * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages * Builds fine in mock. Must fix: * rpmlint error: W: gnome-audio hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/gnome-audio-%{version}-root Buildroot must be '%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)'. Minor things to look at, not blockers: * Might be nice to move the %files section before the ChangeLog. * rpmlint error: W: gnome-audio summary-ended-with-dot Sounds for GNOME events. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 17:47:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041747.l14HlXLp009801@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-04 12:47 EST ------- Interesting situation. So: A. Anyway bash must be installed first because info requires bash. At the time bash cannot call install-info (and at the time bash.info is useless because info is not used, so not calling install-info is okay) B. Next info is installed. At the time "info" (not bash) has to check if bash.info exists. If it exists (and must exist for this case), "info" must call install-info for bash.info C. Next bash may be upgraded. At the time "bash" must call install-info for bash.info. And the loop problem can be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 17:50:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226447] Merge Review: sysfsutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041750.l14HoGV2009898@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysfsutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226447 jwilson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jwilson at redhat.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org CC| |jwilson at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-04 12:50 EST ------- Should actually be assigned to nobody at fedoraproject.org until someone picks it up for review, only needs to be assigned over to me once a reviewer says there's something that needs my attention. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 17:53:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:53:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041753.l14HrbSo010096@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-04 12:53 EST ------- So: * If info is not installed, bash doesn't have to call install-info for bash.info.gz * info has to call install-info for bash.info.gz only at the first time when info is needed. * After info is installed bash has to call install-info for bash.info.gz every time it is upgraded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 17:55:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 12:55:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041755.l14HtRSG010170@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-04 12:55 EST ------- Sounds like a potential job for triggers, something like: %triggerin -- info # run install-info for the bash stuff here || : %triggerun -- info if [ $2 -eq 0 ] ; then # run install-info --delete for the bash stuff here || : fi -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:00:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041800.l14I0Pxu010294@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-04 13:00 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Sounds like a potential job for triggers, something like: > > %triggerin -- info > # run install-info for the bash stuff here || : > > %triggerun -- info > if [ $2 -eq 0 ] ; then > # run install-info --delete for the bash stuff here || : > fi Perhaps should work well. Also bash has to have a script for calling install-info for upgrade time (with || :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:02:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226254] Merge Review: perl-Devel-Symdump In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041802.l14I20n4010368@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Devel-Symdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226254 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-04 13:01 EST ------- Thanks for the review, Jose! I've applied your changes, including the (yuck! But necessary.) epoch bump. And built for FC7. Let me know how it looks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:02:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:02:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041802.l14I23b7010379@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tcallawa at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2007-02-04 13:02 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147312) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147312&action=view) New perl spec This is a new spec for perl with lots and lots of cleanups. The review below is against this spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:04:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:04:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041804.l14I4p0q010459@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-04 13:04 EST ------- NOTE FOR DISCUSSION: Right now all the individual dictionary aspell packages are technically noarch payloads.. but they need to be arched packages because they want to drop content down in {_libdir}/aspell-0.60 which parses into /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 and thus is arch specific. Does it make sense to change this so that the dictionary's are instead placed in /usr/share? which is not arch specific? Obviously this would be a win in a multilib world. I can't see a long term down-side to rearranging the bits so that aspell dictionary packages could be treated as noarch packages. Am I missing something? Are the dictionary payloads arch specific and I'm just blind? -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:07:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:07:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225291] Merge Review: audiofile In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041807.l14I7DdZ010534@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: audiofile https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225291 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |mclasen at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-04 13:07 EST ------- Changes look good. +1 Approved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:11:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:11:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226424] Merge Review: sound-juicer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041811.l14IBXL3010656@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sound-juicer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226424 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |mclasen at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-04 13:11 EST ------- Changes look good. +1 Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:12:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:12:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226003] Merge Review: libexif In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041812.l14ICDsd010684@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libexif https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226003 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-04 13:12 EST ------- Taking for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:16:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:16:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226322] Merge Review: psmisc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041816.l14IG9aO010789@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: psmisc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226322 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kzak at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 13:15 EST ------- Andy, please reassign tickets back to the requester and switch the fedora-review flag to -, if you deny the request +, if you approve it. See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags for more info. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:18:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:18:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226108] Merge Review: lsof In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041818.l14IILMm010960@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lsof https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226108 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:18:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:18:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041818.l14IIjwv011013@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 mr.ecik at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mr.ecik at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-04 13:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Does it make sense to change this so that the dictionary's are instead placed in > /usr/share? which is not arch specific? Obviously this would be a win in a > multilib world. I can't see a long term down-side to rearranging the bits so > that aspell dictionary packages could be treated as noarch packages. I was thinking about that too, when I was fixing an aspell-pl package. Putting files in %{_libdir} also makes ugly rpmlint error in aspell-* packages.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:19:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:19:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041819.l14IJKQT011078@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-04 13:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > /etc, /usr/sbin are compiled in. Having it as a macro can't really help. > > This shouldn't be so. Can't that be corrected? I'm not really planning to port the package to autoconf just so /etc could be moved... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:24:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:24:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226813] Merge Review: zsh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041824.l14IOdsL011611@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226813 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |james.antill at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-04 13:24 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (BSD) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 2cefebf742c190cbc611baded825db64 zsh-4.2.6.tar.bz2 2cefebf742c190cbc611baded825db64 zsh-4.2.6.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. See below - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 4 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Should use the correct default build root. 2. rpmlint says: rpmlint on ./zsh-4.2.6-3.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: zsh explicit-lib-dependency libcap Why isn't that getting picked up by rpm? E: zsh standard-dir-owned-by-package /etc/skel Don't own that dir... filesystem already has it. E: zsh wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/run-help "/usr/local/bin/zsh" E: zsh wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/checkmail "/usr/local/bin/zsh" E: zsh wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zcalc "/usr/local/bin/zsh" Perhaps use a sed to change that to remove the local? E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/run-help 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/checkmail 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zkbd 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zcalc 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/harden 0644 Might need to be 755? W: zsh hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.zshrc Ignore. W: zsh dangerous-command-in-%postun cp E: zsh use-tmp-in-%postun Might be worth looking at a better way to do that...but not sure off hand what it would be. rpmlint on ./zsh-4.2.6-3.fc7.src.rpm W: zsh prereq-use fileutils grep /sbin/install-info W: zsh make-check-outside-check-section ZTST_verbose=0 make test You could move that to a '%check' section... E: zsh use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR W: zsh macro-in-%changelog version W: zsh macro-in-%changelog version Should be %% in changelog for macros. W: zsh mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 74, tab: line 83) Use spaces or tabs only? W: zsh patch-not-applied Patch1: zsh-4.0.6-make-test-fail.patch Perhaps remove the unneeded patches? 3. 4.3.2 is out, might be worth moving to? They have apparently been working on multibyte support. Might also address this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183557 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:28:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:28:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226271] Merge Review: perl-Net-IP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041828.l14ISTQh011846@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Net-IP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226271 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-04 13:28 EST ------- Thanks for the review, Ville. I noticed a couple of other things that I fixed as well: o rpmlint complained about mixed-spaces-and-tabs. Fixed. o Removed the redundant BuildRequires: perl o Fixed the Release: to include magic %{?dist} macro -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:33:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:33:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041833.l14IX16m012454@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147312|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2007-02-04 13:32 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147314) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147314&action=view) Fixed spec No, look at this spec. Made one minor fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:34:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:34:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041834.l14IYqQb012681@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu |mlichvar at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-04 13:34 EST ------- I fear this will be mildly difficult, as the ncurses build process seems mildly complicated and I can't really tell if it all actually needs to be that way, so I'll need help from you to comprehend what's going on. First, let's look at rpmlint output: E: ncurses tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: ncurses-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: ncurses-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: ncurses tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: ncurses non-utf8-spec-file ncurses.spec These are due to bero's name in the changelog and should go away with a bit of editing or a pass through iconv. W: ncurses invalid-license distributable W: ncurses-debuginfo invalid-license distributable W: ncurses-devel invalid-license distributable W: ncurses invalid-license distributable The license is actually BSD, and the license tag should be changed to match. E: ncurses-devel obsolete-not-provided ncurses-c++-devel W: ncurses unversioned-explicit-obsoletes ncurses-c++-devel These should just go away; the last time that package was shipped was RH9. E: ncurses-devel script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/ncurses-devel-5.6/test/savescreen.c E: ncurses-devel script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/ncurses-devel-5.6/test/demo_panels.c W: ncurses-devel doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ncurses-devel-5.6/test/tracemunch perl(strict) W: ncurses-devel doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ncurses-devel-5.6/test/tracemunch /usr/bin/perl None of these should be executable. I suppose there's plenty of value in packaging these because it's not really possible to run the tests at build time, but the bottom line is that documentation should not be executable. E: ncurses hardcoded-library-path in /lib This is specifying the location of the terminfo directory; my understanding is that it needs to be in /lib regardless of the architecture. W: ncurses rpm-buildroot-usage %build --with-install-prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT \\\ This I am not conmpletely sure of. The intent is to make sure you don't mess with the buildroot in a way that breaks short-circuiting (because nothing should go into the buildroot until %install). But this is just defining something that sets up the install location and so it should be OK, but I'd like to know before approving this that the usual "make DESTDIR=... install" or even %makeinstall doesn't work for this package. Those are the only issues of note, and should be pretty easy to fix up. Review: * source files match upstream: f9cac2b31683a37d65bc37119599752198a0691e462d0d1a252cf9815f5724d5 ncurses-5.6.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines: Looks like a post-release snapshot and is named according to upstream's policy. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. X license field says "distributable" but is really BSD. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. O latest version is not being packaged: I think a new rollup came out yesterday morning, but it's certainly not a blocker. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %makeinstall is not used. * package builds in mock. * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: There are a couple of errant Perl requirements in the -devel package that come from executable documentation. ncurses-5.6-2.20070120.fc7.i386.rpm: libform.so.5 libformw.so.5 libmenu.so.5 libmenuw.so.5 libncurses.so.5 libncursesw.so.5 libpanel.so.5 libpanelw.so.5 libtic.so.5 ncurses = 5.6-2.20070120.fc7 = /sbin/ldconfig libform.so.5 libformw.so.5 libmenu.so.5 libmenuw.so.5 libncurses.so.5 libncursesw.so.5 libpanel.so.5 libpanelw.so.5 libtic.so.5 ncurses-devel-5.6-2.20070120.fc7.i386.rpm: ncurses-devel = 5.6-2.20070120.fc7 = /bin/sh X /usr/bin/perl libform.so.5 libformw.so.5 libmenu.so.5 libmenuw.so.5 libncurses.so.5 libncursesw.so.5 libpanel.so.5 libpanelw.so.5 libtic.so.5 ncurses = 5.6-2.20070120.fc7 X perl(strict) * %check is not present; there's a test suite upstream, but it's interactive and so not runnable at build time. * shared libraries are present and ldconfig is called properly. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate (executable documentation) * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. There are old-style *-config files in /usr/bin, and they are packaged properly. * no libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:35:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:35:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226189] Merge Review: neon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041835.l14IZbWc012717@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: neon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226189 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:36:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:36:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226892] Review Request: kpowersave - kde power control applet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041836.l14Ias55012772@bugzilla.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: kpowersave - kde power control applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226892 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-04 13:36 EST ------- Built in devel and FC-6 thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:41:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:41:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226271] Merge Review: perl-Net-IP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041841.l14If1ad012897@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Net-IP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226271 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-04 13:41 EST ------- Built new package for FC7. Let me know what you think. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:43:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:43:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226189] Merge Review: neon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041843.l14IhDYD013019@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: neon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226189 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-04 13:43 EST ------- About to get kicked out of the reviewing room, but I'll at least list out the rpmlint issues: W: neon-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development libraries and C header files for the neon library. Should be trivial to fix. W: neon redundant-prefix-tag Prefix: should just be deleted. Relocatable packages are a lost cause anyway. Also, current upstream neon is 0.26.3. I think there are API changes that may prevent this from being a simple update, so I'll let you make that decision. 0.25.5 is the most current 0.25.5 release available. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:54:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:54:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225870] Merge Review: gtk-doc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041854.l14Isimh013324@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtk-doc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225870 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-04 13:54 EST ------- Issue that came up from reviewing glib2: gtk-doc should also create an empty %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html directory and own it, so packages that install things in that directory could depend on it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:57:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:57:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226108] Merge Review: lsof In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041857.l14IvG3P013436@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lsof https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226108 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |kzak at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 13:57 EST ------- Hi Karel, Review for release 3: * RPM name is OK * This is the latest version * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Package is marked as relocatable, please check. (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#RelocatablePackages) * No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag. * Preserve timestamps when installing files * Use {?dist} in Release tag Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: lsof summary-ended-with-dot A utility which lists open files on a Linux/UNIX system. W: lsof invalid-license Free W: lsof no-url-tag W: lsof redundant-prefix-tag W: lsof macro-in-%changelog install rpmlint of lsof: W: lsof summary-ended-with-dot A utility which lists open files on a Linux/UNIX system. W: lsof invalid-license Free W: lsof no-url-tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 18:58:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:58:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041858.l14IwIZ9013487@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |mclasen at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-04 13:58 EST ------- OK, trying to restrict myself, these are the final rants. I also went over the Packaging Guidelines. Summarizing the status of things as they stand, and I believe they are all: Blockers -------- * The executable-sourced-scripts errors by rpmlint are definitely errors. Reading the rpmlint source code it only checks two directories for such things, /etc/bash_completion.d and /etc/profile.d. Bug here: . I guess Separate bugs need to be filed for other packages that put execuatble files there. * The two "Conflicts"es are fine, but should be documented. Quote from : "Remember, whenever you use Conflicts:, you are also required to include the reasoning in a comment next to the Conflicts: entry, so that it will be abundantly clear why it needed to exist." * From : "MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory." glib2 puts files in /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/. That means that it should at least depend on gtk-doc that owns /usr/share/gtk-doc. The html subdirectory is more problematic, but I think gtk-doc should be changed to own it. Already mentioned in bug 225870. * Please use the "-p" option of install for copying files to /etc/profile.d. See Possible improvements --------------------- * I believe the summary lines should be a little different for each sub-package. My raw suggestion is "developement files for glib2" and "static libaries for glib2", but anything that makes the three a little different is fine. A user is supposed to be able to distinguish the packages based on their description sometimes. Same description doesn't help. * Please mark %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/* as documents. Just add a %doc at the beginning of the line. rpmlint output -------------- E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh 0755 E: glib2 executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh 0755 E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: glib2-static devel-dependency glib2-devel W: glib2-static no-documentation W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libglib-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgobject-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgthread-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgmodule-2.0.a All are fine except the executable-sourced-script ones, already mentioned above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:02:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041902.l14J2S8n013596@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-04 14:02 EST ------- Bill, have you decided yet if you go with DESTDIR or instroot? It's not a blocker but if you change instroot to DESTDIR you have to adjust some things to let it build in a chroot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:16:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:16:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222589] Review Request: dolphin - A file manager for KDE focusing on usability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041916.l14JGflS013958@bugzilla.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: dolphin - A file manager for KDE focusing on usability https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222589 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:17:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:17:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223598] Review Request: liborigin - Library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041917.l14JH5qc013986@bugzilla.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: liborigin - Library for reading OriginLab OPJ project files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223598 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|221027 | nThis| | Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:22:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225658] Merge Review: cpuspeed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041922.l14JM6sn014182@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpuspeed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225658 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-04 14:22 EST ------- Turns out the lack of source files in my debuginfo is due to my rpm build root's $RPM_BUILD_DIR having a shorter path name than /usr/src/debug, which debugedit (called from find-debuginfo.sh) pukes on. With a suitably longer build root path, source files are indeed being properly included in -debuginfo now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:30:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226003] Merge Review: libexif In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041930.l14JUkrO014556@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: libexif https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226003 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |mclasen at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-04 14:30 EST ------- First issues and suggestions, in random order: * Several patch files in CVS are not used. Please remove. * change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * The resolved URL for Source0 (http://umn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/libexif/lixexif-0.6.13.tar.bz2) gives me a 404 HTTP error. * The AUTHORS files shipped in the RPM is empty. * Change the Requires line of -devel to %{name} = %{version}-%{release} * Devel package description says that there are also static packages. There are not. * Don't use %makeinstall. Use make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install. * Documents are installed into two different directories, /usr/share/doc/libexif (in libexif-devel) and /usr/share/doc/libexif-%{version} (in libexif). Make them one. * Make -devel require pkgconfig, as it includes *.pc files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:40:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:40:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041940.l14JeGHG014706@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 14:40 EST ------- I struck a bug, which I'm working with upstream reveal its identify. I think you should be aware of what it is (perhaps you might find something that we can't see ): irsim tut_irsim_scmos2um.prm tut_irsim_gate.sim -example.cmd I can't see any changes on analyser however when I print the output to a file, I can see evolution with respect to time. see file c.ps see screenshot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:40:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041940.l14Jeosi014732@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 14:40 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147317) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147317&action=view) tut_irsim_gate.sim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:41:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:41:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041941.l14JfN7B014764@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 14:41 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147318) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147318&action=view) tut_irsim_scmos2um.prm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:42:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:42:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041942.l14Jg7if014790@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 14:41 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147319) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147319&action=view) example.cmd -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:42:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041942.l14JgtHZ014821@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 14:42 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147320) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147320&action=view) screenshot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:43:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041943.l14JhGTk014838@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 14:43 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147321) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147321&action=view) c.ps -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 19:57:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 14:57:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702041957.l14JvEco015130@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 14:57 EST ------- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim-9.7.41-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:15:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:15:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042015.l14KF6Xw015646@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 jwilson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cattelan at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-04 15:15 EST ------- Looks like Russel has done the last few updates to xfsprogs, so we should probably poke him too... Axel, any objections to either Eric or Russell taking it over? Based on the changelog, this was originally pulled in from your packages, but both Eric and Russell come from SGI and still actively work on the XFS code... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:15:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225839] Merge Review: gnome-terminal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042015.l14KFHSx015670@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-terminal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225839 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |reza at farsiweb.info CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-04 15:15 EST ------- Reza is working on this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:16:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:16:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042016.l14KGISI015724@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 15:16 EST ------- We know what the problem is : which in fact quite silly. :) The display was being redrawn after all. The problem is that the background is being drawn white, and the traces are drawn white, so the result is white-on-white, and invisible! The Tcl/Tk version was hacked on top of the X11 version, and some things aren't properly configured for Tcl/Tk. In Magic and XCircuit, the X defaults has been moved to Tcl, where they are read from a Tcl script. In IRSIM, the properties are still controlled by X11 and the X11 resource manager. The white-on-white probably comes from a default .Xdefaults or possibly .Xresources setting "*background: white" which makes all backgrounds white by default. You can avoid this by adding to your home .Xdefaults file: irsim.background: black and then reloading with "xrdb -load .Xdefaults". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:19:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:19:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042019.l14KJTcK015809@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-04 15:19 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147327) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147327&action=view) corrected screenshot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:22:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042022.l14KMams015897@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net | ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-04 15:22 EST ------- Sure, I hadn't noticed that Eric and Russel were at RH now, they are both far better suited for any XFS bits than I am. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:29:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:29:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226329] Merge Review: pycairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042029.l14KT7bP016062@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pycairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226329 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mbarnes at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-04 15:29 EST ------- Random notes: * Change URL to: http://cairographics.org/pycairo * Add complete URL for "Source:" * Use full BuildRoot of %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * No need to BuildRequires on python, python-devel pull that * Use make %{?_smp_mflags} instead of make * Use %{name} in Requires: %name = %{version}-%{release} (style) * Don't use %makeinstall, but make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install * Change 'xargs rm' to 'xargs rm -f' * The %doc line is empty. At least ship ChangeLog, README, AUTHORS, COPYING*, and NEWS. Perhaps also NOTES (in main package or -devel, don't really know). * -devel package should Require pkgconfig * Change this: %dir %{_includedir}/pycairo %{_includedir}/pycairo/pycairo.h to this: %{_includedir}/pycairo/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:35:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:35:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042035.l14KZ4D8016226@bugzilla.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: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net 2007-02-04 15:35 EST ------- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/ekg2.spec http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/ekg2-0-0.3.20070203.src.rpm Addressed the above issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:53:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:53:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042053.l14Kreca016986@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-04 15:53 EST ------- I don't see libpixman in any of FC2, FC3, FC4, FC5, FC6, thus we should be able to simply drop this obsolete Obsoletes: - Toshio said that we should not worry about going back further than 2 Fedora releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:54:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:54:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227291] New: Review Request: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets 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=227291 Summary: Review Request: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: gregmhogan at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com My first package, need a sponsor. Spec URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/greg/ptunnel.spec SRPM URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/greg/ptunnel-0.61-2.src.rpm Description: Ping Tunnel is a tool for reliably tunneling TCP connections over ICMP echo request and reply packets (commonly known as ping requests and replies). It is useful for evading firewalls that, for whatever reason, prevent outgoing TCP connections, but allow in- and outgoing ICMP packets. The tunnel works by having a proxy run on a machine ping-able from the inside of the firewall, with the client running on the local machine from which TCP access is required. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:56:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:56:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227291] Review Request: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042056.l14Ku7qZ017116@bugzilla.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: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227291 gregmhogan at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 20:56:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 15:56:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226246] Merge Review: perl-Compress-Zlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042056.l14KuiTH017141@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Compress-Zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226246 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-04 15:56 EST ------- Joe - You're welcome to have it, if you want it. :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:02:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226271] Merge Review: perl-Net-IP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042102.l14L27Bk017313@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Net-IP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226271 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rnorwood at redhat.com |ville.skytta at iki.fi -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:06:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:06:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225745] Merge Review: fedora-logos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042106.l14L6Alu017388@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-logos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225745 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-04 16:05 EST ------- I agree about the license tag. Wrt to the package not being free software, I'll cite the packaging guidelines: "If the content enhances the OS user experience, then the content is OK to be packaged in Fedora Extras." "If you are unsure if something is considered approved content, ask on fedora-extras-list." -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:14:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:14:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225684] Merge Review: devhelp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042114.l14LEVJO017634@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: devhelp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225684 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mbarnes at redhat.com |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:15:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:15:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225684] Merge Review: devhelp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042115.l14LFBMX017657@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: devhelp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225684 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:20:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:20:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042120.l14LKW0Z017750@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-04 16:20 EST ------- > Toshio said that we should not worry > about going back further than 2 Fedora releases. Generally yes. But to be on the very safe side, we may wish to go as far back as FC3 and FC4 (since they were dropped pre-maturely and may have some people who have not switched yet), but not further. No difference to libpixman of course. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:28:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:28:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226254] Merge Review: perl-Devel-Symdump In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042128.l14LStj2017939@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Devel-Symdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226254 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-04 16:28 EST ------- Robin, Looks good! Minus one in the review pile. jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:30:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042130.l14LUN0B017984@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-04 16:30 EST ------- Alright, changes have been made, new RPM built....Thanks, Jose, let me know how it looks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:35:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:35:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042135.l14LZCf7018052@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-04 16:35 EST ------- Robin, Did the package build correctly with the Test::Pod build requirement? (I'm not sure if the build system is able to pull packages from Extras.) jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:37:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:37:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042137.l14LbDbn018092@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-04 16:37 EST ------- Nope - it did not - I spoke to soon in comment #3 I've gotta go catch a plane - I'll look at it monday. Thanks again for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:40:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:40:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042140.l14Le84l018171@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rstrode at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-04 16:40 EST ------- Fixed in 1.8.3-2.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 21:45:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042145.l14LjmLa018326@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-04 16:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Nope - it did not - I spoke to soon in comment #3 :( > I've gotta go catch a plane - I'll look at it monday. Boa viagem! ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 22:24:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:24:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226247] Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042224.l14MOwFt019314@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226247 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-04 17:24 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147332) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147332&action=view) Specfile patch Robin, The patch includes the usual corrections plus: * update to 0.21 * several changelog corrections (versions) * excludes a provides (rpmlint) * the signature test has been dropped (upstream) jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 22:26:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:26:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226247] Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042226.l14MQIqv019371@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226247 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jpo at di.uminho.pt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 22:28:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:28:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215569] Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042228.l14MSRfl019518@bugzilla.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: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215569 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-04 17:28 EST ------- Ah, first I'd heard of an official tarball as well... I'm just putting the finishing touches on a stand-alone seom package, which I'll hopefully get submitted for review shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 22:34:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:34:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225979] Merge Review: lam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042234.l14MYCEZ019665@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225979 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ed at eh3.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-04 17:34 EST ------- I think Jason is on the right track here. LAM is old and all of the LAM upstream has joined forces with OpenMPI: http://www.lam-mpi.org/ If folks do want to keep LAM around (which is understandable since it is a known quantity, after all), then its high time to clean it up so that its easier to simultaneously install multiple MPI implementations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 22:37:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:37:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042237.l14Mb2K9019753@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-04 17:37 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > NOTE FOR DISCUSSION: > > Right now all the individual dictionary aspell packages are technically noarch > payloads.. but they need to be arched packages because they want to drop content > down in {_libdir}/aspell-0.60 which parses into /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 and thus > is arch specific. > > Does it make sense to change this so that the dictionary's are instead placed in > /usr/share? which is not arch specific? To me it is a blocker if it isn't done, since it goes against the FHS, and sane packaging practices. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 22:36:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:36:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042236.l14Mavee019749@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-04 17:36 EST ------- Some more fixes in -3.fc7. I haven't added a gtk-doc dependency, since that would be a bit backwards. gtk-doc is the tool used to create the documentation. There is very little reason to require gtk-doc at runtime, just for the sake of directory ownership. It would make a lot more sense to give the package to e.g. devhelp, which can actually use the content of those directories at runtime. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 22:38:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:38:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042238.l14McDlg019820@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mclasen at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 22:39:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:39:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226558] Merge Review: xfsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042239.l14Mdeis019865@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226558 ------- Additional Comments From cattelan at thebarn.com 2007-02-04 17:39 EST ------- I just updated fc5 fc6 and fc7 to xfsprogs 2.8.18 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 22:40:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 17:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042240.l14MeobB019940@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-04 17:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > > /etc, /usr/sbin are compiled in. Having it as a macro can't really help. > > > > This shouldn't be so. Can't that be corrected? > > I'm not really planning to port the package to autoconf just so /etc could be > moved... This isn't needed. Carefully chosen make variables overriden when running make can do the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 4 23:07:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 18:07:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227291] Review Request: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702042307.l14N75Xn020488@bugzilla.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: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227291 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-04 18:07 EST ------- Not an official review because you need a sponsor, which I am not. - rpmlint is silent on both src.rpm and generated rpm [1] - package meets naming guidelines (upstream calls the project "Ping Tunnel", refers to it as "ptunnel" and packages it as "PingTunnel-release.tar.gz"). - package meets packaging guidelines - license (BSD) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, sha1sum cea9c16fa4da0af2f59f2ece7ede56650095a752 PingTunnel-0.61.tar.gz - package builds on devel (x86_64) [1} - MUSTFIX: missing BR libpcap-devel - MUSTFIX: unnecessary BR libpcap - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of foreign files/directories - MUSTFIX: duplicate file ptunnel.8.gz - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file since the program is just command line - no static, .la, .pc - no scriptlets [1] with corrected BR [2] the %files section could be rewritten as %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc CHANGELOG LICENSE README web/ %{_bindir}/ptunnel %{_mandir}/man8/ptunnel.8* SHOULD - with corrected BR, builds in mock - runs as advertised Please correct the above mentioned MUSTFIX and once you find a sponsor, you should point him to this pre-review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 00:01:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:01:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226809] Merge Review: fonts-sinhala In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050001.l1501lRP021664@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fonts-sinhala https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226809 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eng-i18n-bugs at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-04 19:01 EST ------- This package was already reviewed for Core in bug 197189. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 00:05:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:05:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226391] Merge Review: scim-bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050005.l150557l021849@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-bridge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226391 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ryo- | |dairiki at users.sourceforge.ne | |t ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-04 19:05 EST ------- Thanks, Warren. (In reply to comment #2) > http://www.scim-im.org/projects/scim_bridge > This seems to be down. Any idea what happened? Temporary? Not sure, it has been down for some days. I'll look into it. > scim-bridge i386 rpmlint > W: scim-bridge spurious-executable-perm > /usr/share/doc/scim-bridge-0.4.9/doc/icon/kasasagi.png > W: scim-bridge spurious-executable-perm > /usr/share/doc/scim-bridge-0.4.9/doc/icon/kasasagi.svg > Might as well fix this. > > E: scim-bridge zero-length /usr/share/doc/scim-bridge-0.4.9/README > This is not bad. > > scim-bridge src rpmlint > W: scim-bridge prereq-use gtk2 >= 2.9.1-2 > This is legitimate by the comment. > W: scim-bridge macro-in-%changelog _bindir > This doesn't concern me, however you may want to just hardcode it so rpmlint > stops complaining. > > APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 00:12:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:12:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226391] Merge Review: scim-bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050012.l150Ctdl022047@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-bridge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226391 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-04 19:12 EST ------- > W: scim-bridge spurious-executable-perm > /usr/share/doc/scim-bridge-0.4.9/doc/icon/kasasagi.png > W: scim-bridge spurious-executable-perm > /usr/share/doc/scim-bridge-0.4.9/doc/icon/kasasagi.svg > Might as well fix this. Do you want to fix this in the next release, Dairiki-san? Or is it easier I just override the permissions in the spec file? > E: scim-bridge zero-length /usr/share/doc/scim-bridge-0.4.9/README > This is not bad. Removing in next build. I'm pretty sure it was non-empty earlier. > W: scim-bridge macro-in-%changelog _bindir > This doesn't concern me, however you may want to just hardcode it so rpmlint > stops complaining. Thanks, fixed above two in cvs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 00:34:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:34:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227228] Review Request: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050034.l150YA09022467@bugzilla.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: GshutDown - Advanced shut down utility for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227228 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-04 19:34 EST ------- (in reply to commnet #2) All fixed except explicit BR for libglade2-devel which required, mock failed while building whitout it. (in reply to comment #4) >Certainly not. But: > Version: 0.2 > Release: 0.1.rc1%{?dist} fixed (in reply to comment #6) added %post and %postun -------------------- New spec and srpm files rebuilt in mock SPEC URL: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/gshutdown.spec SRPM URL: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/gshutdown-0.2-0.2.rc1.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 00:38:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:38:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050038.l150ctMf022648@bugzilla.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: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net 2007-02-04 19:38 EST ------- http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/ekg2.spec http://rpm.greysector.net/extras/ekg2-0-0.4.20070203.src.rpm Even more issues fixed: - renamed perl and python bindings packages - added gpgme-devel BR - added BuildConflicts: readline-devel - removed redundant BRs - built HTML docs - built ncurses plugin with -fno-strict-aliasing to avoid infinite loop in unicode build -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 00:43:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:43:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050043.l150hRY0022817@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-04 19:43 EST ------- libpixman was just available in rawhide before FC5, when cairo had not reached 1.0. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 02:38:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:38:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050238.l152c2IZ025584@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-04 21:38 EST ------- I have one final question. I have just made a patch to the Makefile.in so that we can use "make DESTDIR=%{buildroot}" instead of %makeinstall. Since this is a brand new version anyway, do we want to increment the release, or just leave it at 0.1.b1? (I guess it would increment to 0.2.b1.) Or is this up to my discretion? Other than that, I'm ready to check things into CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 02:58:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:58:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050258.l152wdoW026051@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-04 21:58 EST ------- A different way to phrase my previous question is do I need to increment the release if I haven't tagged anything in CVS yet? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 03:08:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226003] Merge Review: libexif In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050308.l15383T7026417@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libexif https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226003 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|mclasen at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-04 22:08 EST ------- Mostly fixed in libexif-0.6.13-3.fc7, except for * The resolved URL for Source0 (http://umn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/libexif/lixexif-0.6.13.tar.bz2) gives me a 404 HTTP error. Can't give a working source url for sourceforge-hosted projects. * Documents are installed into two different directories, /usr/share/doc/libexif (in libexif-devel) and /usr/share/doc/libexif-%{version} (in libexif). Make them one. The api docs are now in /usr/share/doc/libexif-devel-0.6.13, which is quite common for -devel packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 03:22:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:22:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226003] Merge Review: libexif In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050322.l153M5xj026812@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libexif https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226003 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-04 22:21 EST ------- I also added a fix for multilib conflicts due to generated docs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 03:31:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:31:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050331.l153V35J027174@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From jafo-redhat at tummy.com 2007-02-04 22:31 EST ------- All these issues are resolved. The comments were in there from another source, I don't care about them so I removed them. The program runs on my FC6 system, but I haven't copied anything on or off my phone. Scott, who's package this is based off, says he used it to copy photos off his phone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 03:53:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] New: Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility 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=227309 Summary: Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jwilson at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/seom/seom.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/seom/seom-1.0-0.1.159.fc7.src.rpm Description: Seom is a desktop video capture and playback utility, utilized by the beryl project's vidcap plugin. NOTE: was originally included as part of beryl-vidcap, but is now a stand-alone entity. The inclusion of this package now blocks beryl-vidcap's approval into extras (bug 215569). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 03:54:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:54:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225979] Merge Review: lam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050354.l153sMSJ028066@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225979 ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-04 22:54 EST ------- Please ignore (and, if possible, excuse) comment #2. I've read through both the LAM and OpenMPI spec files and quite a bit has happened in the past 6+ months. Here is the start of a more thorough review--I'm just too tired to continue tonight and will post what I have so far: good: + license is good and correctly included + spec file is not needlessly complicated (!) + proper handling of ldconfig standing on a soap-box preaching to... somebody, hopefully: + I applaud the folks who put the time and effort into making LAM and OpenMPI work with (and hopefully, without) the "alternatives" system. Unfortunately, I think its the wrong way to solve the problem. Unlike the selection of an MTA, the selection of an MPI system is NOT (and should NOT!) be treated as a system-wide affair. In an ideal world, users should be able to effortlessly switch between different MPI implementations at any time. For different MPI implementations, using something like the "environment modules" approach makes a *LOT* more sense than the "alternatives" system (which is geared towards programs which are much more system-wide and much less able to work independently and simultaneously). needswork or "please help me understand this": - Source should match upstream. It appears that the only differences between the supplied '7.1.2-rh1' tarball and the upstream '7.1.2' is the removal of some code covered by the APPLE PUBLIC SOURCE LICENSE v2 which, according to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Legal is OK to include in Fedora. But perhaps there are some more complicated linkage issues that necessitate its removal...? Could you please explain. - rpmlint output is available at: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/lam-7.1.2-8.fc7.src.rpm/result/rpmlint.log and most of it seems to be cosmetic (e.g. the trailing '.' and the macro-in-changelog entries). However, the dangling-relative-symlink warning does seem worrisome. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 03:54:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:54:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226112] Merge Review: lv In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050354.l153sOaF028078@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lv https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226112 tagoh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From tagoh at redhat.com 2007-02-04 22:54 EST ------- Thanks for the review. fixed in 4.51-10.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 03:56:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:56:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050356.l153uqCw028138@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 jwilson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: seom - |Review Request: seom - |Desktop video capture and |Desktop video capture and |playback utility |playback utility CC| |tom at dbservice.com, | |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO| |215569 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-04 22:56 EST ------- Builds fine in a rawhide/x86_64 mock chroot, and an updated beryl-vidcap builds against it as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 03:57:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 22:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215569] Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050357.l153vQcm028204@bugzilla.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: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215569 jwilson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |227309 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 05:32:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 00:32:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225979] Merge Review: lam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050532.l155WNjS000515@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lam https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225979 ------- Additional Comments From dledford at redhat.com 2007-02-05 00:32 EST ------- In regards to dropping LAM, I'm all for it (and I currently own it). In regards to the system wide default issue. Although the LAM and OpenMPI packages attempt to set the system wide default via alternatives, that's really only for people that want to be lazy and just use whatever is there. The purpose of the /usr/share/{lam,openmpi}-/bin* directories is so that people can still run their preferred application without it being the system wide default (openmpi in particular needs to be called with $0 being a correct filename or else it won't find the right modules, so you can't just create unique symlinks to the binaries). If people want the alternatives stuff removed strongly enough, then I could just make all the mpi implementations use non-default locations and do away with the overlap entirely, although I suspect that would violate the linux FHS, so the justification would need to be strong enough to do so. As for the source not including the APSL files, I was informed (by legal) that the exact wording of the APSL makes it questionable whether or not it is actually legal to have both APSL and GPL source distributed in the same tarball, and so I removed the APSL files from the tarball we ship at their request. I don't really know enough about the legal stuff to comment on whether or not that's right, so I can't argue the correctness of the action, I was just doing what I was told (however, I was told this in regards to RHEL, not Fedora, so it may have been an incorrect assumption on my part that the same legal issue would exist in Fedora). As for the dangling symlink issue, that's from the practice of putting only versioned .so files in -libs (aka, totalview.so.0.0.0 and totalview.so.0) and putting the bare .so file in -devel. The -devel package should have a Requires: on the -libs package, which would negate the dangling symlink (pauses to go check)...indeed, the base package Requires: -libs, and -devel Requires: the base package, so the dependency chain is in fact in tact, rpmlint just gave a false positive in this case. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 06:39:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 01:39:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050639.l156d5jO002358@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-05 01:39 EST ------- I would say that although in this case practically there would be no change seen by the final users, any modification to the spec file -- and above all when you modify the source -- should be reflected in the release field (and a proper comment added to changelog). And yes, 3.9.0-0.2.b1 would be correct (see last line in the second set of examples -- incremented Fedora %{name}-%{version}-%{release} -- at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 06:41:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 01:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050641.l156fh98002445@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-05 01:41 EST ------- * Doesn't build on FC6 due to some issues related to it's docs (docbook): ... jade -t sgml -d ./website.dsl\#html ./manual.sgml jade:./website.dsl:2:95:W: cannot generate system identifier for public text "-//Norman Walsh//DOCUMENT DocBook HTML Stylesheet//EN" ... * The spec contains all kind of odd auto*-related hacks. AFAICS, all these are superfluous if "make DESTDIR="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}" install" was used. * Package contains static libs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 06:57:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 01:57:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050657.l156v7ni002949@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-05 01:57 EST ------- The package looks almost fine now, except for - in Fedora there is no lib64usb-devel. Independent of architecture the package is called libusb-devel. - the Categories section in the .desktop does not look right. I for one would not look for this app under "Graphics" but under "Communications" or something similar. Maybe that, for inspiration sake, you could take a pick at some other similar application ? - patches are to be included as %Patch, not as %Source. I suggest -Source3: %{name}-0.3-crossplatform.patch +Patch: %{name}-0.3-crossplatform.patch -patch -p1 -s <%{SOURCE3} +%Patch -p1 -b crossplatform Please address the above and I will be glad to do a final review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 07:44:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 02:44:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225785] Merge Review: gdm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050744.l157iTWD004075@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gdm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225785 bbbush.yuan at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bbbush.yuan at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-05 02:44 EST ------- should gdm require "redhat-menus"? I'm installing XFCE and gdm to a minimal installed system. Yum cannot find dependency for "/usr/share/desktop-menu-patches/gnome-gdmsetup.desktop", so I have to specify "redhat-menus" on yum cmdline. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 07:49:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 02:49:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050749.l157nhxb004223@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 trond.danielsen at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 07:56:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 02:56:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223592] Review Request: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050756.l157uebu004387@bugzilla.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: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223592 trond.danielsen at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |trond.danielsen at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-05 02:56 EST ------- Spec file and srpm are not available at the given location. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 08:24:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 03:24:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050824.l158O25P005684@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 09:01:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 04:01:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226189] Merge Review: neon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050901.l1591lhV008230@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: neon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226189 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-05 04:01 EST ------- I've fixed the rpmlint issues in -6; thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 09:31:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 04:31:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050931.l159VMSl011038@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-05 04:31 EST ------- And cvs-import.sh has also tagged the imported files (with a wrong .fc6 tag, btw, because it was set in the src.rpm). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 09:33:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 04:33:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224254] Review Request: bos - Real-time strategy game using the Stratagus game engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050933.l159XTFD011204@bugzilla.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: bos - Real-time strategy game using the Stratagus game engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224254 trond.danielsen at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |trond.danielsen at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-05 04:33 EST ------- I have updated the spec file according to the comments, and added a desktop file. An icon is still missing though... The package build with mock, and rpmlint reports no errors or warning.s Eveything can be found here: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/battle-of-survival/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 09:43:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 04:43:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225771] Merge Review: fribidi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702050943.l159hrLg011838@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fribidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225771 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-05 04:43 EST ------- a) actually I think people are gone a little mad on using the dist tag: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines says "If you wish to use a single spec file to build for multiple distributions, you can use the %{?dist} tag in the Release field", implies that it's not a requirement, but allowed if you want to use it. Anyway, doesn't bother me either way, so added along with the rest of the review points (I think I got them all) as fribidi-0_10_7-6_fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 10:08:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225771] Merge Review: fribidi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051008.l15A81WM013457@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fribidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225771 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-05 05:07 EST ------- ( Just a note: * As written in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag , using ?dist tag is "preferred", _not_ mandatory. There are some cases in that ?dist tag is of no means. * As written in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines , setting buildroot as %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) is "preferred", and also this is _not_ mandatory. Making to use %__id_u mandatory is still under discussion, some reviewers and sponsors strongly disagree this. ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 10:10:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:10:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225771] Merge Review: fribidi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051010.l15AAktN013696@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fribidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225771 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-05 05:10 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > * As written in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines , > setting buildroot as > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > is "preferred", and also this is _not_ mandatory. > Making to use %__id_u mandatory is still under discussion, > some reviewers and sponsors strongly disagree this. This has changed: last week, the FPC has decided to make it mandatory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 10:13:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:13:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051013.l15AD7Ei013878@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From Didier.Moens at dmbr.UGent.be 2007-02-05 05:13 EST ------- Testing 0.7.6_4-3.3 : $ wacomcpl shell-init: error retrieving current directory: getcwd: cannot access parent directories: No such file or directory wacomcpl: using TCLLIBPATH="[list /usr/local/lib ]" /usr/bin/wacomcpl: line 20: /usr/local/bin/wacomcpl-exec: No such file or directory --> Looks like you'll need to patch /usr/bin/wacomcpl, stripping out "/local/". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 10:15:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:15:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051015.l15AF3vp014058@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-05 05:15 EST ------- 1. Please increment the release number each time you push a new package for review and post the corresponding URLs here. Not doing so makes it unnecessarily hard for reviewers to track your activities. 2. Package doesn't honor RPM_OPTFLAGS configure.in and ucsim/configure.in play tricks with debugger flags. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 10:29:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225771] Merge Review: fribidi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051029.l15AT1vd015189@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fribidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225771 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-05 05:28 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > * As written in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines , > > setting buildroot as > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > is "preferred", and also this is _not_ mandatory. > > Making to use %__id_u mandatory is still under discussion, > > some reviewers and sponsors strongly disagree this. > This has changed: last week, the FPC has decided to make it mandatory. I think this bug is not a preferred place to discuss, however, while I don't disagree (rather I recommend) to use __id_u, what I fear that the macro for _id_u is as written in /usr/lib/rpm/macros, ------------------------------------------------ # # fixowner, fixgroup, and fixperms are run at the end of hardcoded setup # These macros are necessary only for legacy compatibility, and have moved # to per-platform macro configuration (i.e. /usr/lib/rpm/-/macros) # # Note: These are no longer enabled by default. #%__id_u %{__id} -u #%__chown_Rhf %{__chown} -Rhf #%__chgrp_Rhf %{__chgrp} -Rhf #%_fixowner [ `%{__id_u}` = '0' ] && %{__chown_Rhf} root #%_fixgroup [ `%{__id_u}` = '0' ] && %{__chgrp_Rhf} root #%_fixperms %{__chmod} -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w # -------------------------------------------------- ... it seems that this is written for _legacy_ support, and these macros may be removed in the future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 10:39:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:39:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051039.l15AdEZO016394@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 05:39 EST ------- Why do you want to remove the .ps files? It contains the manual in viewable and printable format? There is an info manual but it is not a substitute. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 10:56:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:56:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225771] Merge Review: fribidi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051056.l15AunEG018521@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fribidi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225771 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-05 05:56 EST ------- Note: on rpm 4.4.8, _id_u macro is for redhat _only_. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 11:07:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:07:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051107.l15B74oB019092@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 06:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > libpixman was just available in rawhide before FC5, when cairo had not reached 1.0. OK. If you want to keep the Obsoletes, please provide answers to comment #5 so we can make sure the best is specified in the spec. If you want to remove them, feel free. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 11:19:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:19:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051119.l15BJGoI019679@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-05 06:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > 1. Please increment the release number each time you push a new package for > review and post the corresponding URLs here. Not doing so makes it unnecessarily > hard for reviewers to track your activities. > Sorry, I did not think about that. I have updated the spec file with the correct release number, and uploaded it and the srpm file here: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/sdcc > 2. Package doesn't honor RPM_OPTFLAGS > configure.in and ucsim/configure.in play tricks with debugger flags. > Hmm, I am not sure how to solved this. I found the function in configure.in that modifies $CFLAGS, but should I modify configure and run autoconf first, or modify configure directly? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 11:27:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:27:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051127.l15BRY7X019970@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 nphilipp at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From nphilipp at redhat.com 2007-02-05 06:27 EST ------- Both should be fixed (I also removed the article from the summary, i.e. "Tool ..." not "A tool ...") in version 8.53-2 which is building right now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 11:28:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051128.l15BS9Ru020010@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-05 06:28 EST ------- Thanks APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 11:29:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:29:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051129.l15BTOXA020120@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 nphilipp at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 11:30:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:30:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051130.l15BUMjt020157@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 nphilipp at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nphilipp at redhat.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 11:33:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:33:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051133.l15BX0Fh020316@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-05 06:32 EST ------- Chitlesh, I think it will be good to answer above comment first before i will proceed on RE-approving this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 11:42:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:42:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051142.l15BgLa0020653@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-05 06:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > Created an attachment (id=147302) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147302&action=view) [edit] > Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4.fc7 > > Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4 on FC-devel i386. > > * Currently I cannot figure out why mockbuild log says: > ----------------------------------------------- > BLT: no > > Tcl/Tk magic uses the BLT package to create a tree diagram > of the cell hierarchy in a design. Without it, this option > is unavailable. Consider installing the BLT package. > ----------------------------------------------- I can't see why in rawhide it refused to detect it. However the blt is been installed. Installed: blt.i386 0:2.4-14.z.fc6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 11:43:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:43:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225849] Merge Review: gnuplot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051143.l15BhRdn020708@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnuplot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225849 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 06:43 EST ------- * BuildRoot isn't the right one * Wouldn't it be a good idea to add directories holding truetype fonts located in %{_datatdir}/fonts to the gnuplot-4.0.0-refers_to.patch patch? * A suggestion: depend on the font packages. It has pros and cons. * unuseful requires: Requires: libpng * I don't like the License tag. It appears not to be free software as it is now, although it is. Maybe it would be better to have something like License: Gnuplot And in a comment say something along # changes must be distributed as patches * RPM_OPT_FLAGS is unuseful on make command line, and %{?_smp_mflags} is missing. I tested that replacing with make %{?_smp_mflags} seems right. Is PATH=$RPM_BUILD_DIR/gnuplot-%{version}:$PATH really needed? * The %post scriptlet should be run everytime not only at install time * A suggestion: in %{files} use wildcard to handle different compression or no compression: %{_mandir}/man1/gnuplot.1* %{_infodir}/gnuplot.info* * The doc in psdoc isn't generated rightly. I suggested cd to the directory and make ps_symbols.ps ps_fontfile_doc.pdf Then distribute only ps_fontfile_doc.pdf ps_guide.ps ps_symbols.ps ps_file.doc It implies a BuildRequires on latex for pdflatex -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 11:56:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 06:56:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225661] Merge Review: createrepo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051156.l15BuBq2021115@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: createrepo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225661 pnasrat at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From pnasrat at redhat.com 2007-02-05 06:55 EST ------- I've got commit access upstream so will add copying for next release. I've addresssed the other points. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 12:02:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:02:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051202.l15C2h3M021315@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-05 07:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > Created an attachment (id=147302) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147302&action=view) [edit] > Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4.fc7 > > Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4 on FC-devel i386. > > * Currently I cannot figure out why mockbuild log says: > ----------------------------------------------- > BLT: no > > Tcl/Tk magic uses the BLT package to create a tree diagram > of the cell hierarchy in a design. Without it, this option > is unavailable. Consider installing the BLT package. > ----------------------------------------------- > mock build showed me this as Yes > * icon cache updating > ----------------------------------------------- > %post > touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : > %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : > > %postun > touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : > %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : > -------------------------------------------------- > - I don't think this is needed because this package > installs no icon image files into the directory. as per given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets, I could not find any files being installed in %{_datadir}/icons. So you can remove this scriptlets. > > * rpmlint > says.. > -------------------------------------------------- > W: magic hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/magic/sys/.magicrc > E: magic script-without-shebang /usr/lib/magic/tcl/console.tcl > -------------------------------------------------- > * What is the formar file? > * I think the latter is surely the issue. I think you have given some explanation for that in comment #1 > > * Please consider to make the log of compile more > precise, not just telling us: > -------------------------------------------------- > --- compiling cmwind/CMWcmmnds.o > --- compiling cmwind/CMWundo.o > --- compiling cmwind/CMWrgbhsv.o > --- linking libcmwind.o > -------------------------------------------------- > I cannot find what is actually done here. Looks like make command is not providing that info. > > * Documentation > - main package contains the files under > /usr/lib/magic/doc, which seem to be the same files > in -doc file. yes. i found them similar from -doc to main package. any reason for adding doc files again in main package also? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 12:09:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:09:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051209.l15C9oIM021562@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-05 07:09 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #10) > > Created an attachment (id=147302) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147302&action=view) [edit] [edit] > > Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4.fc7 > > > > Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4 on FC-devel i386. > > > > * Currently I cannot figure out why mockbuild log says: > > ----------------------------------------------- > > BLT: no > > > > Tcl/Tk magic uses the BLT package to create a tree diagram > > of the cell hierarchy in a design. Without it, this option > > is unavailable. Consider installing the BLT package. > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > mock build showed me this as Yes Well I saw it as Yes too before submitting. I fear that something have changed in the development repos. If this isn't fixed, I'll wait. And consider the below issues fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 12:13:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:13:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051213.l15CDnEs021781@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-05 07:13 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > (In reply to comment #10) > > > Created an attachment (id=147302) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147302&action=view) [edit] [edit] [edit] > > > Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4.fc7 > > > > > > Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4 on FC-devel i386. > > > > > > * Currently I cannot figure out why mockbuild log says: > > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > BLT: no > > > > > > Tcl/Tk magic uses the BLT package to create a tree diagram > > > of the cell hierarchy in a design. Without it, this option > > > is unavailable. Consider installing the BLT package. > > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > > > mock build showed me this as Yes > > Well I saw it as Yes too before submitting. I fear that something have changed > in the development repos. > > If this isn't fixed, I'll wait. > > And consider the below issues fixed. Sorry, Which one? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 12:35:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:35:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051235.l15CZL4H022720@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 jnovy at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(roozbeh at farsiweb.i | |nfo) ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-05 07:35 EST ------- Hardlink desn't have an upstream actually as the only repository, would you object to have an URL like this: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/hardlink/ in the URL tag? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 12:47:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:47:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051247.l15ClboL023485@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |rstrode at redhat.com CC| |mclasen at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 07:47 EST ------- Doing a thorough review this time. BAD === MUST: License * The license file in the package says GPL, while the license tag in the spec says LGPL. Some file headers say GPL, while others say LGPL, which makes the whole package GPL. So spec file should be changed to say GPL. (blocker) * As some of the files are LGPL-ed, a copy of the LGPL should also be included in the upstream tarball and also shipped in the RPM. Contact upstream (SHOULD item). * Some files like gtksourceview-marshal.c and gtksourceview-typebuiltins.c don't have a license header, which makes them proprietary (pessimist view) or at least unknown licensing (considering that some files in the same dir are GPL while others are LGPL. No trivial fix, but contacting upstream is recommended again. MUST: owning dirs * -devel package puts files in %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html, while not depending on any packages that owns that dir. I don't know who should be the lucky package, but this is a blocker anyway. MUST: build requires * As configure.in requires intltool 0.35.0, which is not available on FC5, the package should have a versioned build dependency on intltool >= 0.35.0 (blocker). IMPROVEMENTS ============ Grammer * I guess gtksourceview should be changed to GtkSourceView in the description of the -devel package (second line), as it's refering to the library/widget, not the package. Docs * Consider marking files under %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/ as %doc Style * Add extra slash to the end of directories in the %files section when you want to include their files also: %{_datadir}/gtksourceview-1.0/ %{_includedir}/gtksourceview-1.0/ %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/gtksourceview/ GOOD ==== MUST: rpmlint output W: gtksourceview-devel no-documentation MUST: package naming fine MUST: spec name matches package name MUST: US English fine MUST: packaging guidelines followed MUST: free software MUST: tarball's license is shipped in RPM as %doc MUST: spec file legible MUST: tarball matches upstream (md5sum checked) MUST: built binary RPMs on FC6/i386 MUST: no ExcludeArch MUST: locales handled properly MUST: ldconfig used properly MUST: not relocatable MUST: no dups in %files MUST: file permissions fine MUST: %clean fine MUST: macro use consistent MUST: has code MUST: no large docs MUST: header files in -devel, no static libs MUST: -devel has *.pc and Requires pkgconfig MUST: *.so goes in -devel MUST: -devel has fully versioned dep on main MUST: *.la removed explicitly MUST: not GUI MUST: doesn't own others' files SHOULD: no scriptlets -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 12:53:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:53:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226162] Merge Review: mtools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051253.l15Crkkl023955@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mtools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226162 atkac at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From atkac at redhat.com 2007-02-05 07:53 EST ------- problems are fixed in mtools-3.9.10-4.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 12:54:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:54:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223592] Review Request: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051254.l15CsI40024069@bugzilla.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: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223592 ------- Additional Comments From dgoodwin at redhat.com 2007-02-05 07:54 EST ------- My apologies, hard drive failure on what we were using as a webserver. Restored from backup that didn't include the .spec file or the SRPM. Also updated as per the suggestions in comment #6, new URL's are: http://dangerouslyinc.com/files/wuja/gnome-applet-wuja.spec http://dangerouslyinc.com/files/wuja/gnome-applet-wuja-0.0.5-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 12:57:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 07:57:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051257.l15Cv7Wi024305@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-05 07:56 EST ------- The purpose of the URL is to inform the users (and the reviewers :) ) where to look for additional info about the content of the package. Your suggestion is OK assuming that content at that the URL is there to stay and that it will reflect further changes on the software. You should also consider - switching to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) as buildroot - using just the rm -fR part in %clean - I think (I am not sure now) that -Wall is part of $RPM_OPT_FLAG Why was the epoch field needed ? I see no mention about it in the Changelog, just a bump in Feb 2006 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:06:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051306.l15D6gDZ024874@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 alexl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bugs.michael at gmx.net ------- Additional Comments From alexl at redhat.com 2007-02-05 08:06 EST ------- All comments fixed in 1.16-1. Also, this was once an extras package that moved to core due to f-spot requiring it. I'll gladly give it back to whoever else wants to maintain it. Michael, you're latest in the changelog. Are you interested? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:12:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:12:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226003] Merge Review: libexif In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051312.l15DCqbn025115@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libexif https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226003 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 08:12 EST ------- I believe I can't finish this review, not understanding multilib issues well enough. Leaving for someone else to take. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:21:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:21:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225812] Merge Review: gnome-audio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051321.l15DLAB5025580@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-audio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225812 ------- Additional Comments From alexl at redhat.com 2007-02-05 08:21 EST ------- All comments fixed in cvs (2.0.0-4) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:21:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:21:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051321.l15DLtxI025627@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(roozbeh at farsiweb.i| |nfo) | ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 08:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Why was the epoch field needed ? I see no mention about it in the Changelog, > just a bump in Feb 2006 Not related to review of course. If it was added somewhen, it's going to stay with us forever... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:27:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:27:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225661] Merge Review: createrepo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051327.l15DR9if025906@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: createrepo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225661 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 08:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > I've addresssed the other points. Did you commit the changes? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:33:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:33:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051333.l15DXagr026162@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-05 08:33 EST ------- I have stripped out "/local/" and changed the configure part in the spec file. the new rpm's: spec url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-7.6.4-5.spec srpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.6.src.rpm debug url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-debuginfo-0.7.6_4-3.6.i386.rpm rpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.6.i386.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:34:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:34:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051334.l15DYSsI026232@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 jnovy at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(roozbeh at farsiweb.i | |nfo) ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-05 08:34 EST ------- Please check the current CVS hardlink at: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/hardlink/ If you don't have any other objection I'm going to build this version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:37:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:37:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051337.l15Db2WX026311@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-05 08:37 EST ------- Or better, checkout it from CVS directly, the webcvs needs some time to get synced with the latest commit I just made. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:40:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:40:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051340.l15DehYb026561@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-05 08:40 EST ------- MUSTFIX: - Remove this: [ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && [ -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ] && rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT; - Remove the -g from this: gcc -Wall $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -g %{SOURCE0} -o hardlink This overrides debug flags that might be contained in RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:45:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:45:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051345.l15DjbPl026855@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-05 08:45 EST ------- Ralf Corsepius: cvs up your are looking into an old revision. I removed the stuff from the %clean in the last commit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 13:59:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 08:59:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225661] Merge Review: createrepo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051359.l15DxtRa028568@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: createrepo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225661 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ Fixed In Version| |0.4.6-2 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 08:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Did you commit the changes? Ah, the anonymous CVS is delayed for two hours! All fine now. The only remaining issues are using the full source URL in the "Source" line, and including the license file in the package. None of them are blockers, so I approve the package. But please consider fixing both issues. Final rpmlint output: E: createrepo explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python which I believe is fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:06:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:06:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226260] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051406.l15E6c07029587@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226260 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-05 09:06 EST ------- Robin, The perl(Test::Pod) BR should be removed from the patch attached to comment #1 while (?) the build system is unable to pull Extras packages. jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:14:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:14:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225671] Merge Review: curl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051414.l15EEbXm030313@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-05 09:14 EST ------- > Needs work: > * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment > (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) Fixed. > * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros > (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) Fixed. > * The %makeinstall macro should not be used > (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) cURL won't build without the %makeinstall > * rpmlint of curl-devel: rpmlint not clean: W: curl-devel summary-ended-with-dot Files needed for > building applications with libcurl. > * rpmlint of curl: rpmlint not clean: W: curl one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig. Fixed. > Minor: > * Duplicate BuildRequires: pkgconfig (by libidn-devel) I don't think this is something we want to fix, as we are going to have troubles if the libidn maintainer drops the pkgconfig dependency. > Notes: > * Requires: openssl is not needed (Wiki: Extras/FullExceptionList) Fixed. > * in %package devel: Requires should probably be BuildRequires Nope, there should be AFAIK only Requires for the subpackages. > * Please use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:16:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:16:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051416.l15EGmJD030548@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-05 09:16 EST ------- No particular interest. I've never been a maintainer of lcms, just a bug-fix grunt. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:18:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:18:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051418.l15EItrN030795@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(kevin at tummy.com) ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-05 09:18 EST ------- I'm not sure whether you rewieved the last version of logwatch in fc (logwatch-7.3.2-6.fc7) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:20:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:20:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051420.l15EK7PU030937@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-05 09:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Ralf Corsepius: cvs up > > your are looking into an old revision. I was looking at the revision, that was current ca 20 seconds before I sent the mail. > I removed the stuff from the %clean in the last commit. Sorry, if this hit you, but unless RH finally starts to provide usable services, I don't see any reason to continue any "merge-review". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:28:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:28:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220381] Review Request: compat-flex - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051428.l15ES30h031602@bugzilla.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: compat-flex - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: flex-old - |Review Request: compat-flex |Legacy version of flex, a |- Legacy version of flex, a |tool for creating scanners |tool for creating scanners OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | -- 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 Mon Feb 5 14:39:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:39:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051439.l15Ed2wH032121@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From jafo-redhat at tummy.com 2007-02-05 09:38 EST ------- Done. SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin-0.3-4.src.rpm Spec URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:39:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226333] Merge Review: pygtk2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051439.l15EdrD0032152@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pygtk2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226333 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 09:39 EST ------- BLOCKER: spec filename is not %{name}.spec >From the review guidelines: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:40:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:40:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225834] Merge Review: gnome-python2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051440.l15Ee2Ii032174@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-python2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225834 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 09:40 EST ------- BLOCKER: spec filename is not %{name}.spec >From the review guidelines: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:39:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225284] Merge Review: aspell-sr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051439.l15EdrRf032158@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-sr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225284 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 09:39 EST ------- BLOCKER: spec filename is not %{name}.spec >From the review guidelines: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec The spec file is actually named "-sl", instead of "-sr". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:40:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:40:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225833] Merge Review: gnome-python2-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051440.l15EeCe5032197@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-python2-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225833 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 09:40 EST ------- BLOCKER: spec filename is not %{name}.spec >From the review guidelines: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:40:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:40:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225969] Merge Review: kernel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051440.l15EeRiF032247@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kernel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225969 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 09:40 EST ------- BLOCKER: spec filename is not %{name}.spec >From the review guidelines: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:40:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:40:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225832] Merge Review: gnome-python2-desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051440.l15EeYTi032266@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-python2-desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225832 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 09:40 EST ------- BLOCKER: spec filename is not %{name}.spec >From the review guidelines: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:40:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:40:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225684] Merge Review: devhelp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051440.l15EegAp032306@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: devhelp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225684 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-05 09:40 EST ------- Matt, -p /sbin/ldconfig only works if the %post is otherwise empty, since it replaces the shell. I'll fix that up -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:40:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:40:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225679] Merge Review: dejagnu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051440.l15EeqIK032353@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dejagnu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225679 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 09:40 EST ------- BLOCKER: spec filename is not %{name}.spec >From the review guidelines: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:46:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:46:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226557] Merge Review: xfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051446.l15EkOHo032734@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226557 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 09:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > There should be another alternative for using a pdf viewer. Maybe xdg-open could be used? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 14:54:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 09:54:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225881] Merge Review: hardlink In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051454.l15EsgbL000891@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hardlink https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225881 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-05 09:54 EST ------- Ralf, I meant the gcc -Wall $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -g %{SOURCE0} -o hardlink which was missing from the hardlink.spec for a while. I fixed the %clean section after reading your comment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:10:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:10:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051510.l15FAKLr002017@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From Didier.Moens at dmbr.UGent.be 2007-02-05 10:10 EST ------- Tested with linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.6 : $ wacomcpl wacomcpl: using TCLLIBPATH="[list /usr/lib ]" Error in startup script: can't find package LIBWACOMXI while executing "package require LIBWACOMXI" (file "/usr/bin/wacomcpl-exec" line 28) Stracing wacomcpl seems to indicate it's looking for "[list/" and "[list/pkgIndex.tcl". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:14:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:14:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220381] Review Request: compat-flex - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051514.l15FEt7s002463@bugzilla.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: compat-flex - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rc040203 at freenet.de ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-05 10:14 EST ------- Sorry, somehow bugzilla has swallowed this: APPROVED Petr, do you have any further FE packages at 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 Mon Feb 5 15:17:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225630] Merge Review: buildsys-macros In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051517.l15FHlII002647@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: buildsys-macros https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225630 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dgregor at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 10:17 EST ------- rpmlint output: W: buildsys-macros non-standard-group Development/Buildsystem W: buildsys-macros incoherent-version-in-changelog 7-1.fc6 7-1.fc7 W: buildsys-macros no-url-tag W: buildsys-macros no-documentation W: buildsys-macros non-conffile-in-etc /etc/rpm/macros.disttag The first two should at least be corrected. Other random comments: * Change license to public domain. A 21-byte file is not really worth licensing as GPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIfWorkIsShort * Comment line before "Version:" talks about Fedora Core. Should be changed to Fedora. * Description field is the same as Summary field. Not good. * Use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc everywhere. * Consider using echo instead of printf. The printf lines are tricky and not very legible. * In the first line that writes to the macros.disttag line, use ">" instead of ">>". * The package puts files in /etc/rpm without owning that directory or requiring any package that does so (blocker). * Change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:18:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:18:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051518.l15FIAOf002697@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-05 10:18 EST ------- The upgrade to 1.5.0 is not important to the review of the packaging of php-pear - can we keep these issues seperate? I will try to get to that sometime this week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:26:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:26:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225652] Merge Review: comps-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051526.l15FQVVx003499@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: comps-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225652 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |katzj at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 10:26 EST ------- rpmlint output: W: comps-extras no-url-tag W: comps-extras no-documentation (Assumed fine) Random notes: * Consider changing the buildroot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * URL should be provided for upstream tarball at least, to check against (MUST item) * GPL may not be a very appropriate license for a set of PNG images * Change make to "make %{?_smp_mflags}" * Change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Packages puts files in /usr/share/pixmaps without owning that directory or depending on any packages that owns it (blocker). * Better add extra slash at the end of %{_datadir}/pixmaps/comps to show it's a directory: %{_datadir}/pixmaps/comps/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:35:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:35:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225710] Merge Review: dtach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051535.l15FZPjn004065@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dtach https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225710 ------- Additional Comments From lhh at redhat.com 2007-02-05 10:35 EST ------- Thanks, Jef -- I'll include it in the next build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:35:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:35:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051535.l15FZVDs004077@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From paskalis at di.uoa.gr 2007-02-05 10:35 EST ------- The privoxy spec is borrowed from upstream with many legacy conventions that it makes it very hard to read and possibly maintain. Some examples: - There are some lines that remove carriage returns from configuration files, although no such action is necessary with the last privoxy version (3.0.6). Moreover they are really hard to parse. Example: for i in `ls *.action` do cat $i | sed -e 's/[[:cntrl:]]*$//' > %{buildroot}%{privoxyconf}/$i done - There are many lines dealing with previous names of the package, namely junkbuster and/or junkbust. The rename happened about 6-7 years ago, so I think it is safe to drop this legacy compatibility stuff. - There are too many consistency checks, such as: * consistency between versions in specfile and configure file. * consistency between user/group id in the system and user/group id specified in the specfile The privoxy package has remained in this state for the last 6-7 years, so I suppose it is safe to drop these consistency checks. - As for the used uid/gid pair, I asked in the fedora-packaging list about the hardcoded paths, and the answer was that it is ok to keep using them as long as they are documented in /usr/share/doc/setup-*/uidgid. Privoxy is (documented), so it is ok to hardcoded uid,gid=73,73. - There are some comments in the top of the spec file that only clutter the readability. - Buildroot is not according to the fedora guidelines Since I was some time ago involved in upstream, I tried to clean up the spec file and follow as close as possible the packaging guidelines. Specfile and SRPM can be found at: http://gallagher.di.uoa.gr/any/rpms/privoxy/privoxy.spec http://gallagher.di.uoa.gr/any/rpms/privoxy/privoxy-3.0.6-3.src.rpm There are some other issues in the spec file, such as disabling dynamic pcre and using a static copy, but I did not touch them to keep the functionality as close to current as possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:36:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:36:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051536.l15Fa2ri004122@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-05 10:36 EST ------- Well, * License - No license text exists, and no source code contains license term. tomc, do you agree that this is licensed under GPL? If so, please include GPL license document to your tarball from next release. * Requires for -devel package - Is "freeglut-devel" for Requires on -devel package is needed? This seems to be of no relation for this package. And according to the header files included, libX11-devel is needed for Requires on -devel package. Note that libX11-devel automatically pulls mesa-libGL-devel. * Timestamps - Generally keeping timestamps on text files, such as header files is preferrred. For this package, this can be done by replacing all "install" in Makefile by "install -p". And .. libX11-devel requires mesa-libGL-devel finally. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:36:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225239] Merge Review: adjtimex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051536.l15FaTFx004182@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adjtimex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225239 ------- Additional Comments From mlichvar at redhat.com 2007-02-05 10:36 EST ------- Ok. I didn't add the URL tag as the lsm has old version, but everything else should be fixed in adjtimex-1.21-2.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:38:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:38:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225833] Merge Review: gnome-python2-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051538.l15Fcew3004429@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-python2-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225833 mbarnes at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From mbarnes at redhat.com 2007-02-05 10:38 EST ------- Fixed in gnome-python2-extras-2.14.2-9.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:39:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:39:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225608] Merge Review: basesystem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051539.l15FdNUE004459@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: basesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225608 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pknirsch at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 10:39 EST ------- rpmlint output: SRPM: W: basesystem summary-ended-with-dot The skeleton package which defines a simple Red Hat Linux system. W: basesystem invalid-license public domain W: basesystem no-url-tag W: basesystem prereq-use setup filesystem W: basesystem hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/basesystem-root E: basesystem no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install E: basesystem no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean W: basesystem no-%prep-section W: basesystem no-%build-section W: basesystem no-%install-section W: basesystem no-%clean-section RPM: W: basesystem summary-ended-with-dot The skeleton package which defines a simple Red Hat Linux system. W: basesystem invalid-license public domain W: basesystem no-url-tag W: basesystem no-documentation Random issues: * Change "Red Hat Linux" to "Fedora" (both in summary and description). blocker. * What is the version "8.0"?! I can't say this follows naming guidelines. * Make release integer (6?). * Using Prereq is bad. Change to Requires. blocker. * Capitalize "Public Domain". * Change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * description says this should be the first package installed on a system, but the package Prereq's "setup" and "filesystem". Confusing. * Add empty sections for %prep, %build, %install, and %clean. blocker. * Theoretically, the %files section should contain a %defattr line. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:40:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051540.l15FewSE004589@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147302|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-05 10:40 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147361) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147361&action=view) Mock build log of magic-7.4.33-4.fc7 (again) (In reply to comment #10) > * Currently I cannot figure out why mockbuild log says: > ----------------------------------------------- > BLT: no Well, rawhide released update for tcl and this time checking BLT turned to YES. Perhaps Jakub Jelinek fixed the problem. So please modify the other issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:42:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:42:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051542.l15FgLeE004692@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-05 10:42 EST ------- now you are being a bit too picky. I'm going to remove the Obsoletes, but here are the answers anyway: (In reply to comment #5) > What is the intended user experience here? > * What should happen if a user has libpixman and old cairo installed and then > tries to update his box to a repository that contains the present version of > cairo? libpixman removed, as is apparently what happens. > * What should happen if he only has libpixman and tries to install cairo from > the same repository? "Don't care". Removed. > * What should happen if a user has a new cairo and then tries to install a > libpixman RPM (using a .rpm file he found somewhere that was copied from > rawhide once)? "Don't care". Conflict. > Having answers for these three cases will help finding the best settings for the > Obsoletes lines. I only can think of two settings: keep them or remove them. Removing defeats the purpose of what it was there for: to clean up an unneeded package. Keeping them does just that. There's nothing special here as the only package that evern depended on libpixman was cairo. But as I said, I'll remove them anyway. (the situation is similar to pango obsoleting pango-gtkbeta and fribidi-gtkbeta). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:43:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:43:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051543.l15FhSDh004812@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-05 10:43 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > * License IMO, this package is a clear case of an improperly licensed piece SW that can't be shipped. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:46:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:46:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051546.l15Fk5Hp005131@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-05 10:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > * License > IMO, this package is a clear case of an improperly licensed piece SW that can't > be shipped. > Well, upstream is checking this report (perhaps) and so I will expect he/she posts some comments on this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:49:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:49:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225624] Merge Review: booty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051549.l15Fn42k005323@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: booty https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225624 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pjones at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-05 10:49 EST ------- rpmlint output: RPM: W: booty summary-not-capitalized simple python bootloader config lib W: booty no-url-tag E: booty only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: booty non-executable-script /usr/lib/booty/checkbootloader.py 0644 E: booty non-executable-script /usr/lib/booty/lilo.py 0644 E: booty non-executable-script /usr/lib/booty/grubupdatetest.py 0644 SRPM: W: booty summary-not-capitalized simple python bootloader config lib W: booty no-url-tag E: booty hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/booty Other problems: * License filed says LGPL, while the file lilo.py in the package is actually labeled GPL in the header. (blocker) * No copy of either GPL or LGPL is provided in tarball or is packaged. * Use make %{?_smp_mflags} instead of make * /usr/lib is hard-coded. Use a pref-defined rpm macro instead. (blocker) * Change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Change buildroot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Validity of tarball couldn't be checked, as no upstream is mentioned either as URL or Source URL. (blocker) * We no longer have up2date, so its mention should be removed from description. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:51:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:51:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225834] Merge Review: gnome-python2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051551.l15FpZoC005602@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-python2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225834 ------- Additional Comments From mbarnes at redhat.com 2007-02-05 10:51 EST ------- Fixed in gnome-python2-2.17.2-2.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:51:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:51:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226333] Merge Review: pygtk2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051551.l15Fpnj0005641@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pygtk2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226333 mbarnes at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From mbarnes at redhat.com 2007-02-05 10:51 EST ------- Fixed in pygtk2-2.10.3-8.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:54:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051554.l15FsFlc005920@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-05 10:54 EST ------- I've changed the license tag to say GPL and filed http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404627 I am not going to add a gtk-doc dependency for the /usr/share/gtk-doc/html directory. That just doesn't make any sense. You don't need gtk-doc at all when using the documenation that lives there. If anything, it would make more sense to make devhelp own that directory, but even that is somewhat questionable. The whole concept of unique directory ownership is artifical. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:55:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051555.l15Ftu7X006179@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-05 10:55 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147364) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147364&action=view) irsim -3.1 spec file I created A bit modified irsim.spec I added some fixes for mainly two issues. * ------------------------------------------- %{__cp} -p doc/faultsim/fsim.ps %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} ------------------------------------------- This is of no sense because %doc macro firstly clean %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} directory. * -------------------------------------------- %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}/doc/ ....... %{__rm} -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/%{name}/doc/{irsim,irsim-analyzer,netchange}.doc -------------------------------------------- The latter does nothing. I have not yet checked your example, however, > You can avoid this by adding to your home .Xdefaults file: > > irsim.background: black > > and then reloading with "xrdb -load .Xdefaults". ... Can this be done automatically by adding some files in irsim rpm? If it cannot, adding some documentation may be kinder. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:59:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:59:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051559.l15FxVcD006609@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-05 10:59 EST ------- FWIW, I've removed the Obsoletes: glib-gtkbeta from glib2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 15:59:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:59:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051559.l15Fxupo006669@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 10:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > I am not going to add a gtk-doc dependency for the /usr/share/gtk-doc/html > directory. That just doesn't make any sense. You don't need gtk-doc at all > when using the documenation that lives there. If anything, it would make more > sense to make devhelp own that directory, but even that is somewhat questionable. agreed. We shouldn't force any of those deps. > The whole concept of unique directory ownership is artifical. Not necessarily, but here, having the package own /usr/share/gtk-doc/ and /usr/share/gtk-doc/html seems best except if a filesystem only package (maybe filesystem) would own that directory, but it is not obvious it would be right. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:01:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:01:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051601.l15G1klD006834@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 karsten at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-05 11:01 EST ------- wget macro-in-%changelog xx is a false positive, usage of %%macroname is allowed. The rest should be fixed in wget-1.10.2-13.fc7. Thanks for the review ! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:03:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:03:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051603.l15G3ejV007076@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-05 11:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > The whole concept of unique directory ownership is artifical. Yes, it's a cludge to work-around a bug in rpm. As I said many times before: - If several packages share a common directory, and if they depend on each other in a strict hierarchy, then letting the "root package" own this dir is sufficient. - If they don't depend on each other in a strict hierarchy, all of the packages must own this directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:06:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:06:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051606.l15G6Lmf007310@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 karsten at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-05 11:06 EST ------- hmm, not sure if this should be closed, I'll reopen: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags?highlight=%28Review%29 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:09:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:09:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051609.l15G9M9g007481@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 11:09 EST ------- I have integrated the patches and the ja translation upstream. Some strings have changed in cvs, and the ja file should be updated accordingly from the cvs file. Link to the file in cvs: http://cvs.savannah.nongnu.org/viewcvs/texi2html/i18n/ja?rev=1.1&root=texi2html&view=auto -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:18:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:18:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051618.l15GIG9s008221@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-05 11:18 EST ------- That's odd. The .spec file uses %{?dist}, not an actual distribution. Should that be unset when I make a tag in the devel branch? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:19:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051619.l15GJ59W008271@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-05 11:19 EST ------- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/magic.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/magic-7.4.33-5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:22:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:22:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051622.l15GMsq8008705@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hdparm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 karsten at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-05 11:22 EST ------- should be fixed in hdparm-6.9-2, thanks for the review ! I'll leave this report open as suggested in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags?highlight=%28Review%29 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:24:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051624.l15GOPPX008884@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-05 11:24 EST ------- ok - now perl-HTML-Tagset-3.10-5.fc7 should be good to go. How about we fight about getting perl-Test-Pod into the buildroots *after* the core/extras consolidation? Thanks, -RN (And it was a good trip for me, thanks. My luggage is a little late, but at least I got home.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:26:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:26:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225717] Merge Review: ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051626.l15GQE2C009063@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225717 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-05 11:26 EST ------- re comment #1: 'BuildRequires info' is wrong, please don't suggest this in other reviews. This needs to be: Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:36:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:36:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051636.l15GaKEn010069@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 ------- Additional Comments From mlichvar at redhat.com 2007-02-05 11:36 EST ------- Thanks for the review. > W: ncurses invalid-license distributable > The license is actually BSD, and the license tag should be changed to > match. Or even better MIT license, is that correct? > W: ncurses rpm-buildroot-usage %build --with-install-prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT \\\ > This I am not conmpletely sure of. The intent is to make sure you don't > mess with the buildroot in a way that breaks short-circuiting (because > nothing should go into the buildroot until %install). But this is just > defining something that sets up the install location and so it should be > OK, but I'd like to know before approving this that the usual > "make DESTDIR=... install" or even %makeinstall doesn't work for this > package. The configure option just sets DESTDIR value in Makefiles, it is the same as installing with DESTDIR=..., but less typing. Should I remove it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:37:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:37:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051637.l15GbIiE010156@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-05 11:37 EST ------- This is what the import logged: > Log Message: > auto-import dxpc-3.9.1-0.1.b1.fc6 on branch devel from > dxpc-3.9.1-0.1.b1.fc6.src.rpm And "cvs log dxpc.spec" agrees with that. The tag dxpc-3_9_1-0_1_b1_fc6 is on the files in "devel" and cannot be reused for the FC-6 branch. This is because the src.rpm was built with "--define dist 6" instead of leaving %dist undefined. When the src.rpm is queried, ".fc6" is part of %release already, and for files in "devel". It is a problem that has come up recently. Most people import src.rpms where they use %{?dist}, but where %dist is undefined when the src.rpm is built. The way out is to increase "Release" in every branch and run "make tag" to create fresh tags in every branch. Not a big issue, but unpleasant trouble just because of %{?dist}. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:37:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:37:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051637.l15GbSqZ010177@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-05 11:37 EST ------- You're right, I didn't approve it yet :-) I'll have another look tonight. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:39:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:39:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225717] Merge Review: ed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051639.l15Gd4dL010404@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225717 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-05 11:39 EST ------- This review is quite incomplete: - Buildroot should be versioned according to the packaging guidelines. - rpmlint complains about mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs - %makeinstall shouldn't be used, 'make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT' is better Fixed in ed-0.4-3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:39:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208064] Review Request: courier-authlib - Courier authentication library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051639.l15GdtcU010488@bugzilla.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: courier-authlib - Courier authentication library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208064 ------- Additional Comments From johan-fedora at deds.nl 2007-02-05 11:39 EST ------- On 16-Jan-2007 version 0.59.1 of courier-authlib was released. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:43:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:43:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051643.l15GhcNX010871@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-05 11:43 EST ------- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/irsim-9.7.41-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:44:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:44:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 188477] Review Request: maildrop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051644.l15GiokO010926@bugzilla.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: maildrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188477 johan-fedora at deds.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | ------- Additional Comments From johan-fedora at deds.nl 2007-02-05 11:44 EST ------- FYI: Version 2.0.3 of maildrop was released last December -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:46:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:46:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051646.l15GkAgd011030@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-05 11:46 EST ------- I've checked the changelog again, there was %xx in there. rpmint took that as a macro. fixed in -14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:48:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 188477] Review Request: maildrop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051648.l15Gm6Gd011136@bugzilla.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: maildrop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188477 johan-fedora at deds.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO ------- Additional Comments From johan-fedora at deds.nl 2007-02-05 11:48 EST ------- Whoops. Restoring NEEDINFO for this review, as I accidently removed it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 16:53:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:53:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051653.l15GrbD8011639@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 11:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #42) > I'm a KISS kind of guy. If it's all the same to you, I rather keep the startup > file as a patch/source. A HERE-doc isn't less KISS. I would have preferred the startup script in the main package and not in the xdgmenu subpackage, but I won't make it a blocker. Remaining issues: * Add a dot at the end of the %description gnome * in xdgmenu the %files section could be %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_bindir}/icewm-xdg-menu* %{_datadir}/icewm/startup with an install command for startup script of %{__install} -p -m 755 %{SOURCE4} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/icewm/startup * sub packages should depend on a full versioned main package, like Requires: icewm = %{version}-%{release} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:05:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:05:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222523] Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051705.l15H590T012695@bugzilla.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:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222523 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pertusus at free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 12:05 EST ------- * rpmlint is silent * spec legible, follow guidelines * free software, GPL license included * sane provides * source match upstream 6cef37a968006d9496fc56a7099c603c gmrun-0.9.2.tar.gz * %files section right APPROVED The source timestamps are not kept. It is not a blocker, but better. wget -N or spectool allows to keep timestamps. ls -l gmrun-0.9.2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/gmrun-0.9.2.tar.gz -rw-rw-r-- 1 dumas dumas 66097 nov 16 2003 gmrun-0.9.2.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 dumas dumas 66097 jan 15 11:28 ../SOURCES/gmrun-0.9.2.tar.gz popt will hopefully be popt-devel someday soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:05:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:05:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051705.l15H5UP6012755@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-05 12:05 EST ------- *License- In bug 215569, Tom said: ----8<---- [...]capture.c has a standard header just like any other file in beryl-plugins, and the seom files have no header, just a LICENSE file in the root directory. If you require that every file needs to have a GPL header, I can add it, no problem. ----8<---- However, said GPL LICENSE file seems to be missing from the seom tarballs... Tom, a license file alone added to the seom tarball should be sufficient. * Requires- Including freeglut-devel is an error on my part, the spec started life as a copy of beryl-vidcap's. I'll drop that and add libX11-devel. * Timestamps- I'll fix that too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:07:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:07:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051707.l15H742Y012986@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 12:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #43) > * in xdgmenu the %files section could be It could be: %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_bindir}/icewm-xdg-menu %{_datadir}/icewm/startup -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:07:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:07:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226322] Merge Review: psmisc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051707.l15H7RUk013050@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: psmisc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226322 ------- Additional Comments From andy.grimm at ingres.com 2007-02-05 12:07 EST ------- Ruben, sorry for not following procedure. I should have explained that I'm not sponsored yet, so I do not have access to reassign tickets. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:14:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:14:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051714.l15HEId2013785@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-05 12:14 EST ------- Updated srpm: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/seom/seom-1.0-0.2.159.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:16:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:16:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215569] Review Request: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051716.l15HGUp2013972@bugzilla.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: beryl-vidcap - Beryl OpenGL window and compositing manager video capture utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215569 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-05 12:16 EST ------- This review is now blocked on the acceptance of build requirement seom, which is being tracked in bug 227309. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:20:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:20:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225832] Merge Review: gnome-python2-desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051720.l15HKYKf014283@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-python2-desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225832 mbarnes at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From mbarnes at redhat.com 2007-02-05 12:20 EST ------- Fixed in gnome-python2-desktop-2.17.3-3.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:22:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:22:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051722.l15HM93Z014430@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-05 12:22 EST ------- > In bug 215569, Tom said: > >[...]capture.c has a standard >header just like any other file in beryl-plugins, and the seom files have no >header, just a LICENSE file in the root directory. This does not apply to the seom tarball. International copyright laws require him to claim ownership (Copyright/Author disclaimer - Otherwise he can't grant a license) and to provide a License. How to do so is arguable. Also, there is a file inside of the tarball (src/codec.c) containing another person's copyright without license: * Copyright 2006, Lasse Reinhold (lar at quicklz.com) => Tom is not allowed to claim copyright rsp. re-license this file, unless he received a license explicitly permitting him to do so from this person. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:33:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:33:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051733.l15HXpgK015206@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 ------- Additional Comments From Matt_Domsch at dell.com 2007-02-05 12:33 EST ------- I'll sponsor Michael. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:50:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:50:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051750.l15HoERs016145@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-05 12:50 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147379) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147379&action=view) Mock build log of PythonCAD-0.1.35-2.fc7 Mock build log of PythonCAD-0.1.35-2 on FC-devel i386. Dependency changed during python 2.4 -> 2.5 and this package needs "BuildRequires: python-devel". Then... * Directory structure ------------------------------------------- %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/pythoncad/prefs.py* ------------------------------------------- - Well, the files under /etc are configuration files and generally no binaries are permitted (for this package .pyc or .pyo file) prefs.py should be moved to normally %{_datadir}/%{name}. This movement also requires some other modification on files included in PythonCAD. * File entry ---------------------------------- %{_bindir}/gtkpycad* ---------------------------------- - This asterisk is no longer needed. * Desktop file ----------------------------------- [Desktop Entry] Name=PyCAD Comment=PythonCAD Icon=/usr/share/pixmaps/gtkpycad.png Exec=/usr/bin/gtkpycad.py Terminal=false Type=Application Encoding=UTF-8 X-Desktop-File-Install-Version=0.12 Categories=Office;Graphics;Application;Utility;X-Red-Hat-Base; ---------------------------------------- - Exec entry is wrong.. - For icon entry, "Icon=gtkpycad.png" is preferred. - Both categories "Application" "X-Red-Hat-Base" are deprecated and should be removed. * Requires - Please check python related dependency. For example, Interface/Gtk/gtktext.py includes the line: ---------------------------------------- import pango ---------------------------------------- This means this package needs "pygtk2" for Requires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:53:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051753.l15HrQCJ016371@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-05 12:53 EST ------- One another comment: ----------------------------------------------- chmod 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python_sitelib}/PythonCAD/Generic/bindump.py ------------------------------------------------ - Well, if this python script is not aimed for being called by user, only called by other python scripts, the permission should be 0644 and shebang on this script should be removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:57:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:57:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051757.l15Hv8Ve016628@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-05 12:57 EST ------- ==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ==== X rpmlint php-pear-1.4.11-3.noarch.rpm: W: php-pear non-standard-group System Trivial: change to "Development/Languages" W: php-pear invalid-license The PHP License v3.0 Trivial: change to "PHP License 3.0" W: php-pear conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pear.conf W: php-pear conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rpm/macros.pear Trivial: Add noreplace flag (or a comment explainging your *good* reason for not adding a noreplace flag) W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.__uri W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.__uri W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.depdblock E: php-pear zero-length /usr/share/pear/.depdblock W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.depdb W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.lock E: php-pear zero-length /usr/share/pear/.lock W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.filemap W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.pkgxml W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.pkgxml W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.pecl.php.net W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.pecl.php.net W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels/.alias W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels/.alias W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry Safe to ignore, except for the 0 length ones, do these really need to be in the package? $ rpmlint php-pear-1.4.11-3.src.rpm W: php-pear non-standard-group System Trivial fix (see above) W: php-pear invalid-license The PHP License v3.0 Trivial fix (see above) W: php-pear setup-not-quiet Trivial: Add -q to %setup E: php-pear use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR Never seen this used before, are you using this in place of .? W: php-pear no-%build-section Trivial: Add empty build section with a comment saying it is not needed W: php-pear patch-not-applied Patch1: php-pear-1.4.8-package.patch W: php-pear patch-not-applied Patch0: php-pear-1.4.8-template.patch Patches that are not applied should be removed, or commented out with an explanation as to why there are still there. - Package named according to package naming guidelines - spec file name matches %{name} - package meets packaging guidelines (buildroot fixed) - licensed with open source compatible license X license does not match actual license - license included in %doc - spec written in American english - spec file legible X cannot verify upstream sources match, I cannot find upstream source ==== MUST FIX ==== - Fix trivial rpmlint errors and warnings - According to http://pear.php.net/package/PEAR this is licensed under the PHP License 2.02, not 3.0 (please clarify with upstream and/or fix spec) - SOURCE0 must have full URL to find source files I have to stop the review here because I cannot find the upstream source file you use, please provide a full URL to sources! Indeed, the upgrade to 1.5.0 *is* important as there should be fewer patches in the spec, and possible build/install changes, and open bugs will be closed. Please make above mentioned changes and upgrade to 1.5.0 before I continue review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 17:58:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 12:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226329] Merge Review: pycairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051758.l15Hw03P016691@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pycairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226329 mbarnes at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From mbarnes at redhat.com 2007-02-05 12:57 EST ------- Fixed in pycairo-1.2.6-3.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:05:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:05:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051805.l15I5fvI017088@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-05 13:05 EST ------- Pretty sure Tom was talking about the seom tarball, and seom is his work, so claiming ownership to grant a license shouldn't be a problem, assuming the rights to codec.c can be ironed out. (Hadn't seen that one, yeah, could indeed be an issue.) Tom? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:19:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:19:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226181] Merge Review: nano In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051819.l15IJ7qE017842@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nano https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226181 Bug 226181 depends on bug 220527, which changed state. Bug 220527 Summary: nano: non-failsafe install-info usage, info files removed from index on update https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220527 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:23:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:23:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051823.l15INmDG018298@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-05 13:23 EST ------- The author replied to me privately and offered to help this process along. He also said that he expects to release 3.3 in a few weeks. Since this is the case, I'll bump the rpm to the CVS version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:34:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:34:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226162] Merge Review: mtools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051834.l15IYeb9019114@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mtools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226162 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:36:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:36:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226162] Merge Review: mtools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051836.l15IaHhj019232@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mtools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226162 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|atkac at redhat.com |ed at eh3.com Flag|fedora-review? | ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-05 13:36 EST ------- Assigning back to the reviewer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:39:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:39:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226333] Merge Review: pygtk2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051839.l15Idgge019485@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pygtk2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226333 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:41:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:41:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225833] Merge Review: gnome-python2-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051841.l15IfUYL019602@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-python2-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225833 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:41:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:41:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225832] Merge Review: gnome-python2-desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051841.l15Ifavd019609@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-python2-desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225832 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:42:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:42:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051842.l15IgCmG019652@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-05 13:42 EST ------- Hi Karsten, Thanks for fixing everything. This package is approved. Please leave the ticket assigned to yourself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:49:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:49:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051849.l15IniKn020042@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-05 13:49 EST ------- Changes applied and tagged as 3.2-5.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 18:52:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:52:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051852.l15Iq9mQ020194@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-05 13:52 EST ------- Okay!! ---------------------------------------------------- This package (irsim) is APPROVED by me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 19:02:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:02:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051902.l15J23Ep021530@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-05 14:02 EST ------- Thanks for the review! Fixed in -4: - upstream do not provide a permanent archive URL for each version of the .phar installer, so there is no URL to provide (yes, I know this sucks). I'll add a comment to this effect - bogus Group - pear.conf marked noreplace; /etc/rpm/macros.* should never be noreplace (and that should be documented by standard not per spec file) Won't fix: - passing -q to %setup has no effect when -T is also used - providing an noop %build adds no value - no idea what the issue with $RPM_SOURCE_DIR is, this has been used in spec files forever - the patches are applied using %{PATCHn} syntax - the license specified in every PEAR class file is indeed v3 not v2.02. There is no accepted policy for the License tag in Fedora yet; there is no point tweaking this on a whim until there is, rpmlint is not definitive on that front Again, the upgrade to the latest upstream is not relevant to the review of the current packaging and need not block the review process. Of course the packaging may change with each new upstream releases, that is always going to be true. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 19:06:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:06:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051906.l15J6F1B022006@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-05 14:06 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail-2.2.2-3.fc6.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Feb 05 2007 Bernard Johnson 2.2.2-3 - fix typo in logrotate script - patch umask for log files to be something more reasonable -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 19:07:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:07:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051907.l15J7okg022156@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-05 14:07 EST ------- Okay, I tagged the latest version in FC-6. According to the job.log files, it built correctly for all three architectures. Unless there is anything else that needs to be done, I'll close this bug. On a slightly different note, if I try typing "make build" in the devel directory, then I get the error message: dxpc.spec not tagged with tag dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc7 make: *** [build] Error 1 So then if I type make tag, I get the following: cvs tag -c dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc7 ERROR: Tag dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc7 has been already created. The following tags have been created so far dxpc-3_8_2-2:devel:mschwendt:1112826930 dxpc-3_8_2-3_fc5:devel:rdieter:1138638471 dxpc-3_8_2-3_fc5_1:devel:rdieter:1139580877 dxpc-3_8_2-3_fc5_2:devel:rdieter:1141231178 dxpc-3_9_0-1_fc6:devel:jwrdegoede:1154277450 dxpc-3_9_1-0_1_b1_fc6:devel:guthrie:1170455257 dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc7:devel:guthrie:1170694597 dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc6:FC-6:guthrie:1170696651 cvs tag: Pre-tag check failed cvs [tag aborted]: correct the above errors first! make: *** [tag] Error 1 It looks like there is a dxpc-3_9_1-0_2_b1_fc7 tag in devel. Am I just not supposed to do builds in the devel directory? Also, what is the easiest way to find out what tags have already been created? Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 19:09:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051909.l15J9qCo022584@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-05 14:09 EST ------- Quick question: Why do we need to use a .phar archive? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 19:41:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:41:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226271] Merge Review: perl-Net-IP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051941.l15Jfq4I029845@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Net-IP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226271 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-05 14:41 EST ------- Looks good, although even if currently redundant with today's specified minimal Fedora buildroot package lists, I would have kept the perl build dependency (I don't expect it to stick around in the list of "assumed present" packages forever). But that's just a personal preference. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 19:45:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 14:45:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702051945.l15JjTRe030228@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-05 14:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Thanks for the review! You're welcome, but we are only about 1/2 way done ;-) > > Fixed in -4: > - upstream do not provide a permanent archive URL for each version of the .phar > installer, so there is no URL to provide (yes, I know this sucks). I'll add a > comment to this effect See comment #9, I need to know why using a .phar is required instead of using the .tgz > - bogus Group Thanks > - pear.conf marked noreplace; /etc/rpm/macros.* should never be noreplace (and > that should be documented by standard not per spec file) Thanks. Please add a comment, something like: # macros.* should be replaced on updates Remember, you are not the only one who reads the spec file, and should you get hit by a bus, the next php-pear maintainer will appreciate the extra documentation. > > Won't fix: > - passing -q to %setup has no effect when -T is also used Filed a bug against rpmlint (bug #227389). Thanks for pointing this out. > - providing an noop %build adds no value Yet, rpm has "unpredictable results if not added". You can email Ville Skytta if you need further clarification on this, he has real world examples where this has caused problems. Better to play safe than sorry. *ALL* pear packages contain empty %build sections, php-pear should not be an exception. Again, this is something that takes 5 seconds to add, and causes no harm and helps documentation in the spec for other users. Please add. > - no idea what the issue with $RPM_SOURCE_DIR is, this has been used in spec > files forever You should install source files using %{SOURCEx} notation, please change your for loop to something like this: install -pm 755 %{SOURCE10} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/pear install -pm 755 %{SOURCE11} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/pecl install -pm 755 %{SOURCE12} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/peardev In addition, your reference to macros.pear should use %{SOURCE13} > - the patches are applied using %{PATCHn} syntax My mistake. You are right in this case, pear packages are installed funky and patches have to be done this way. > - the license specified in every PEAR class file is indeed v3 not v2.02. There > is no accepted policy for the License tag in Fedora yet; there is no point > tweaking this on a whim until there is, rpmlint is not definitive on that front Okay, can you give me some kind of proof that _all_ pear classes are automatically licensed with PHP License 3.0? I know of many pear classes that use BSD for example. The upstream home page actually has a link to the license file which is a version 2.02 license. I simply cannot approve this until this matter is cleared up. The licenses **MUST** match upstream. If upstream's home page is pointing to the wrong license, then please attach to this bug report an e-mail from upstream saying their home page is incorrect. Please also remove the "The" and "v" in the License tag. Why not atleast make the licenses consistent to help people who run shell scripts and such parsing license tags? A license of "PHP License 3.0" is no different than "The PHP License v3.0", however the first case is consistent with all other packages licensed with a PHP license. > > Again, the upgrade to the latest upstream is not relevant to the review of the > current packaging and need not block the review process. Of course the > packaging may change with each new upstream releases, that is always going to be > true. Right, so what is the point in reviewing a package that is going to change significantly immediately after it is reviewed? It makes far greater sense to make the significant changes _before_ the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:03:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:03:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052003.l15K3i7U031717@bugzilla.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: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-05 15:03 EST ------- REVIEW: * source matches upstram (fec378012b1387b67cf226d40a152ebf) !* %{?dist} tag not present * package is licensed under a GPL license; license text is included * rpmlint output: E: ekg2 no-binary W: ekg2 no-documentation W: perl-ekg2 no-documentation W: ekg2-gadu-gadu no-documentation W: ekg2-gpg no-documentation W: ekg2-jabber no-documentation W: ekg2-logsqlite no-documentation W: ekg2-ioctld no-documentation W: ekg2-xosd no-documentation W: ekg2-gtk2 no-documentation W: python-ekg2 no-documentation we can safely ignore it since ekg2 is a metapackage * BRs looks fine (mock fc6/x86_64 builds good) * provides and requires look sane * not relocatable * all directories owned well * %clean section present * BuildRoot's good * subpackages: python-ekg2 should be renamed to ekg2-python, because it's not python module but ekg2 extension to support python THINGS to do: - add %{?dist} tag - rename python-ekg2 to ekg2-python -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:04:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:04:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052004.l15K4BM1031767@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-05 15:04 EST ------- > It's not a blocker but if you change instroot to DESTDIR you have to adjust some things to let it build in a > chroot. As stated, it's already fixed in CVS (upstream). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:12:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:12:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052012.l15KCHQw032391@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-05 15:12 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > This isn't needed. Carefully chosen make variables overriden when > running make can do the same. For /usr/sbin, yes, and that I've fixed in CVS. I have no intention of replacing /etc with a macro, as that really *is not changable*. It's a fixed path in the LSB, and it's compiled into the binary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:13:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:13:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052013.l15KDJit032524@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-05 15:13 EST ------- rpmlint took %xx as a macro because it *is* a macro syntactically and even if it's not defined in clean buildroots, we don't know if someone has defined it locally. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:14:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:14:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052014.l15KEgoL032706@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 caillon at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From caillon at redhat.com 2007-02-05 15:14 EST ------- I fixed the desktop-file-utils issue, but did not canonicalize the source because of the reasons I outlined. --disable-static doesn't exactly disable building of all static objects, which I filed upstream: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404717 Left the rest alone. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:19:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:19:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052019.l15KJu86000618@bugzilla.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: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-05 15:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > - rename python-ekg2 to ekg2-python The naming guidelines say pretty much the opposite: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-8756a3bce652c376d7ba3908461b638784b6952d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/223618 This was discussed in a recent packaging committee meeting and no changes were made to the naming guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:22:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:22:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225126] Review Request: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052022.l15KMQV5000816@bugzilla.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: dxpc - A Differential X Protocol Compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225126 guthrie at counterexample.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-05 15:22 EST ------- The succeeded in devel as well, so I'm closing this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:29:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:29:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227244] Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052029.l15KTNjj001504@bugzilla.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: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227244 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-05 15:29 EST ------- Some minor issues : #001 ChangeLog should be among the %doc #002 add timestamps to your make make INSTALL="%{__install} -c -p" install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:30:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:30:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052030.l15KUVRf001576@bugzilla.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: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-05 15:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/223618 Obexftp seems to be different case. Obexftp puts its python files to standard %{python_sitelib} and %{python_sitearch} directories so that's in fact a python module. Ekg2 doesn't create new python module (`import ekg2` give you nothing) so this is not python module but only an extension to ekg2 to support python. Naming Guidelines talks about "(python modules)" but IMO ekg2-python is not a python module. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:31:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:31:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225668] Merge Review: cscope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052031.l15KVite001648@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cscope https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225668 ------- Additional Comments From nhorman at redhat.com 2007-02-05 15:31 EST ------- Comments #4 and #5 fixed in cscope-15.5-15.3%{?dist}. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:43:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:43:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227244] Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052043.l15KhM1C002860@bugzilla.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: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227244 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-05 15:43 EST ------- And for your scriplets: you shouldn't be using update-desktop-database &> /dev/null ||: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28Scriptlets%29#head-de6770dd9867fcd085a73a4700f6bcd0d10294ef but %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/ || : -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 20:58:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052058.l15Kwtfg004586@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-05 15:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) Would it be possible to upload the new spec? It's not available at http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/chkconfig/ (yet) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:00:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:00:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052100.l15L0U3T004812@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From dzrudy at gmail.com 2007-02-05 16:00 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147403) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147403&action=view) rpmbuild errors Attached is the rpmbuild --rebuild output with errors that I got when doing so as a non-root user. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:01:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:01:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052101.l15L1GEp004924@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 16:01 EST ------- * README.COMPILATION.PROBLEMS don't seems to be useful to me * A description of the api should be in the -devel package, I propose manual.html * the main and devel package should use a full versioned dependency for bzip2-libs: Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version}-%{release} * I don't see why the devel package requires the main package * you should use the -p to keep timestamp on unmodified files installed like bzlib.h, man pages * Requires(post) and postun missing for -libs, /sbin/ldconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:11:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:11:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226530] Merge Review: vlock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052111.l15LB9rU006067@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vlock https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226530 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:15:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:15:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226530] Merge Review: vlock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052115.l15LF0ST006490@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vlock https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226530 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |kzak at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-05 16:14 EST ------- Review for release 23: * RPM name is OK * Source vlock-1.3.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) Please add COPYING from the source to %doc Notes: * Please consider using {?dist} in the Release tag * Preserve timestamps when installing files Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: vlock summary-ended-with-dot A program which locks one or more virtual consoles. W: vlock no-url-tag rpmlint of vlock: W: vlock summary-ended-with-dot A program which locks one or more virtual consoles. W: vlock no-url-tag W: vlock conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/vlock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:21:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:21:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226491] Merge Review: time In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052121.l15LLhXV007256@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: time https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226491 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:31:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:31:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052131.l15LVJn3008390@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bug-buddy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-05 16:31 EST ------- So to be clear, the issue is that removing the vendor will change the filename and the menu editor keys off the of the filename when making changes to the menu. That seems a bit icky. It means we can never clean up the --vendor cruft, but for now I'll just add --vendor back until we can figure out a better solution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:38:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:38:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225652] Merge Review: comps-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052138.l15LcFpl009048@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: comps-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225652 katzj at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From katzj at redhat.com 2007-02-05 16:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > rpmlint output: > W: comps-extras no-url-tag Yep, there's not one. > W: comps-extras no-documentation And there isn't any > Random notes: > * Consider changing the buildroot to > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Sure, done. > * URL should be provided for upstream tarball at least, to check against (MUST item) There isn't an upstream tarball location. The upstream _are_ the packages that are built. > * GPL may not be a very appropriate license for a set of PNG images It's not normal, but it's fine. > * Change make to "make %{?_smp_mflags}" Given that there's nothing actually done, this doesn't actually make a difference > * Change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) Sure > * Packages puts files in /usr/share/pixmaps without owning that directory or > depending on any packages that owns it (blocker). /usr/share/pixmaps is owned by the filesystem package. I'm pretty sure we don't have things requiring it > * Better add extra slash at the end of %{_datadir}/pixmaps/comps to show it's a > directory: %{_datadir}/pixmaps/comps/ One better; added the directory as %dir and then the files underneath. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:40:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:40:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052140.l15LeBiZ009247@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 rstrode at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:40:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:40:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225779] Merge Review: GConf2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052140.l15LeP7p009283@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: GConf2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225779 rstrode at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:41:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:41:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226491] Merge Review: time In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052141.l15LfI2S009356@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: time https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226491 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |laroche at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-05 16:41 EST ------- Hi Florian, Here's my review for time 1.7 release 28: * RPM name is OK * Source time-1.7.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Package is marked as relocatable, please check. (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#RelocatablePackages) * The %makeinstall macro should not be used (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#MakeInstall) * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) Notes: * Use Requires(post) and Requires(preun) instead of Prereq * Is "echo "ac_cv_func_wait3=\${ac_cv_func_wait3='yes'}" >> config.cache" still needed? the configure script detects wait3 without it as well (at least, on FC-6) Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: time summary-ended-with-dot A GNU utility for monitoring a program's use of system resources. W: time no-url-tag W: time redundant-prefix-tag W: time prereq-use /sbin/install-info W: time mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 39, tab: line 34) rpmlint of time: W: time summary-ended-with-dot A GNU utility for monitoring a program's use of system resources. W: time no-version-in-last-changelog W: time no-url-tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:46:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:46:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225654] Merge Review: control-center In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052146.l15Lk3FD010055@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: control-center https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225654 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-05 16:45 EST ------- There is an icky sed replace for bug 171059. This got veto'd upstream, so I'm going to drop it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:47:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225654] Merge Review: control-center In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052147.l15LlBBj010175@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: control-center https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225654 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-05 16:47 EST ------- there is a comment: # desktop-file-install really should not be generating this rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/mimeinfo.cache But it won't, because desktop-file-install isn't being called with --rebuild-mime-info-cache so I'm going to drop that line. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:49:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:49:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225654] Merge Review: control-center In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052149.l15LnaA4010368@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: control-center https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225654 ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-05 16:49 EST ------- we already pass --disable-static so we shouldn't need to worry about .a files, and we're being very particular about the .la files we're deleting. I'm going to drop most of the rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/.../*.*a lines and replace them with find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} \; -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:57:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:57:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052157.l15LvBpq011068@bugzilla.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: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-05 16:56 EST ------- That POV was represented in the packaging meeting too, and it does indeed have some merit. Maybe we need more discussion and clarifications. By the way, just from skimming the specfile, the %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Ekg2/Irc/ dir appears to be unowned. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 21:57:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:57:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225654] Merge Review: control-center In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052157.l15Lvuta011226@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: control-center https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225654 rstrode at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mclasen at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From rstrode at redhat.com 2007-02-05 16:57 EST ------- I ran for f in control-center*.patch; do grep -q $f control-center.spec || cvs rm -f $f; done to drop unused patches. There are some other keyboad-drawing patches that I don't know what the fate of them should be. CCing matthias to see what he thinks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 22:04:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:04:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206871] Review Request: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052204.l15M40Ap011798@bugzilla.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: ekg2 - Multi-protocol instant messaging and chat client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206871 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-05 17:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > That POV was represented in the packaging meeting too, and it does indeed have > some merit. Maybe we need more discussion and clarifications. > We probably need. > By the way, just from skimming the specfile, the > %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Ekg2/Irc/ dir appears to be unowned. Fact, missed that... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 22:05:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:05:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052205.l15M5pLk011898@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-05 17:05 EST ------- Package pre-import admin stuff done. Feel free to import. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 22:05:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:05:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052205.l15M5wft011912@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-05 17:05 EST ------- Package pre-import admin stuff done. Feel free to import. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 22:06:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:06:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052206.l15M62UV011927@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-05 17:06 EST ------- Package pre-import admin stuff done. Feel free to import. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 22:14:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:14:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052214.l15MEmWJ013027@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-05 17:14 EST ------- Spec and tarball uploaded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 22:16:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:16:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052216.l15MG7Rp013170@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-05 17:15 EST ------- Whoops. Spec and tarball uploaded to http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 22:43:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:43:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225630] Merge Review: buildsys-macros In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052243.l15MhrhB015452@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: buildsys-macros https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225630 dgregor at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From dgregor at redhat.com 2007-02-05 17:43 EST ------- Thank you for the review. I've checked in fixes for everything except "no-documentation" as none is needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 22:45:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:45:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052245.l15MjYRs015636@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-05 17:45 EST ------- Okay, I've dug a little deeper into this .phar issue, and this is the solution I propose: Add a -pear subpackage to the php package, and do not use --without-pear flag when compiling php. This should allow us to have the pear installer without a need to bootstrap. In addition, we can package the pear classes in seperate spec files using the original .tgz files for each class and can update them independently. And we can also use the standard pear templates to package these classes. Please let me know if there is a problem with this alternative, I think this will be a cleaner solution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 23:00:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227244] Review Request: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052300.l15N0Hxc016519@bugzilla.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: gfa-0.4.1 - GTK+ fast address book https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227244 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-05 18:00 EST ------- * %{_datadir}/%{name}/ is not included! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes * Desktop file category Application has never been official and should be removed, especially when desktop-file-install (or -validate) complains about it. > %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps/ || : Certainly not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 23:05:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222571] Review Request: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052305.l15N5iSi017143@bugzilla.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: kalgebra - MathML-based graph calculator for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222571 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 23:06:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:06:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226715] Review Request: irsim - Switch-level simulator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052306.l15N6hWw017272@bugzilla.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: irsim - Switch-level simulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226715 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 23:21:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052321.l15NLwTJ017829@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 18:21 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147417) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147417&action=view) allow to override all the paths I think that it is important to be able to override the paths when testing a software, such that it is possible to do things without messing up the system, or without administrator rights. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 23:28:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:28:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222372] Review Request: tilda - a quake like drop down terminal for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052328.l15NSJj5018171@bugzilla.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: tilda - a quake like drop down terminal for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222372 josef at toxicpanda.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From josef at toxicpanda.com 2007-02-05 18:28 EST ------- FC-5 FC-6 tilda josef josef at toxicpanda.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 23:29:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:29:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052329.l15NTY89018290@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147417|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 18:29 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147418) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147418&action=view) updated patch The previous one was wrong... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 23:34:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052334.l15NYxQQ018556@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-05 18:34 EST ------- The dependency on chkconfig should certainly be fully versionned: Requires: chkconfig = %{version}-%{release} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 5 23:44:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:44:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702052344.l15NiZne018939@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED CC| |kevin at tummy.com Flag|needinfo?(kevin at tummy.com) | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-05 18:44 EST ------- Odd. I was pulling things from Matts mass rebuild at: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/logrotate-3.7.4-11.fc7.src.rpm/ But you are right, thats clearly old and not the current package. ;( I will try and sort it out after I get some sleep... Sorry for the incorrect version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 00:03:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:03:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060003.l1603Riq019644@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-05 19:03 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147421) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147421&action=view) PythonCad - Requires from import section -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 00:16:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:16:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060016.l160GmvH020137@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-05 19:16 EST ------- Oups - Attachement has cancel the message i was writting... Ok to all but: - %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/pythoncad/prefs.py* I've only excluded from package prefs.py? which are commonly unneeded! prefs.py is a config file and is also refered in %site_lib/preferences.py I will ask upstream about #5 (and correct it if needed!) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 00:17:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:17:03 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060017.l160H3DR020147@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226294: Merge Review: php Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Christopher Stone has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 00:17:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:17:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060017.l160H478020151@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |chris.stone at gmail.com Alias| |php Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 00:25:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:25:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060025.l160PDCu020376@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-05 19:25 EST ------- SRPM: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/PythonCAD/PythonCAD-0.1.35-3.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SPEC: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/PythonCAD/PythonCAD.spec Description: PythonCAD scriptable CAD package -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 00:26:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:26:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060026.l160Q90v020414@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-05 19:26 EST ------- It is hard to create a good spec file ... the new rpm's with the TkxXinput libs included: spec url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-7.6.4-5.spec srpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.7.src.rpm debug url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-debuginfo-0.7.6_4-3.7.i386.rpm rpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.7.i386.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 00:30:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060030.l160UOGn020551@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-05 19:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Created an attachment (id=147403) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147403&action=view) [edit] > rpmbuild errors > > Attached is the rpmbuild --rebuild output with errors that I got when doing so > as a non-root user. I can't rebuild the package as non-root user. Should this be possible ? The build fails cause you cannot delete the man page a non-root user, and you haven't got the kernel-devel package installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 00:42:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:42:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060042.l160g6VM020806@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800 ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2007-02-05 19:41 EST ------- Thanks Tom. This one builds for FC6 in mock. rpmlint has a single complaint about this package... # rpmlint emacs-bbdb-2.35-2.fc6.noarch.rpm W: emacs-bbdb file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/bbdb.info.gz You can fix this with the following spec file patch... --- emacs-bbdb.spec~ 2007-02-03 12:06:44.000000000 -0800 +++ emacs-bbdb.spec 2007-02-05 16:35:51.000000000 -0800 @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ %prep %setup -q -n %{pkg}-%{version} %patch0 -p1 +pushd texinfo +iconv --from=ISO-8859-1 --to=UTF-8 bbdb.texinfo > bbdb.texinfo.new +mv bbdb.texinfo.new bbdb.texinfo +popd %build Actually, rpmlint has a "no documentation" complaint about the -el package as well, but we can ignore it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 01:01:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:01:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060101.l16114bu021211@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-05 20:01 EST ------- Requires: httpd-mmn = %(cat %{_includedir}/httpd/.mmn || echo missing-httpd-devel) php requires httpd-mmn? If it does, then this line is totally ineffective. I have php installed with no httpd-mmn package. Perhaps httpd-devel needs to be added to BR or some kind of build prereq. I was looking at some of the *really* old patches, for example: php-4.3.2-libtool15.patch I don't get this patch, esp since you compile using --with-pic. My ignorance level is pretty amazingly high when it comes to autoconf stuff, but I'm wondering if some of the old patches are still required? I think it makes tons of sense to package php-pear in this package, and send the old php-pear to /dev/null. We can then make a php-pear-PEAR package that basically uses a standard pear class spec file created with fedora-newrpmspec command. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 02:16:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:16:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225654] Merge Review: control-center In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060216.l162GLxo023917@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: control-center https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225654 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-05 21:16 EST ------- the keyboard drawing patches have all been ported to libgnomekbd and can safely be deleted here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 02:39:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:39:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225945] Merge Review: jfsutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060239.l162d0jM024515@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jfsutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225945 ------- Additional Comments From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org 2007-02-05 21:38 EST ------- Jeff has disclaimed ownership of jfsutils. See bug 226558 for the specific comment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 02:40:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060240.l162esRF024577@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-05 21:40 EST ------- Just checked the new version. These seem to be the problems left: - Since release 3, you do not use a consistent convention for the Buildroot. Please select either $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} and use it everywhere (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags) - Packaging/Guidelines/Compiler flags is not respected. The build process is based on qmake.conf default settings, not on $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - the .desktop file does not use a standard category. Please try to find an appropriate one from http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html - I am not sure that Applications/File is the proper RPM Group (I feel like Applications/Communications being more appropriate since you communicate with the mobile..) but I will not object if you retain it. Maybe someone more experienced could give us a hint here ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 03:04:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:04:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225812] Merge Review: gnome-audio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060304.l16347LS025108@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-audio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225812 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|alexl at redhat.com |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 03:14:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:14:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226393] Merge Review: scim-hangul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060314.l163EO7j025485@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-hangul https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226393 tagoh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From tagoh at redhat.com 2007-02-05 22:14 EST ------- Thank you for review. fixed in 0.2.2-8.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 03:28:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:28:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225715] Merge Review: echo-icon-theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060328.l163SMNc026253@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: echo-icon-theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225715 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|davidz at redhat.com |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-05 22:28 EST ------- I've fixed the changelog entries in 0.1-7.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 03:53:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:53:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060353.l163rjtF027594@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 Matt_Domsch at dell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |Matt_Domsch at dell.com ------- Additional Comments From Matt_Domsch at dell.com 2007-02-05 22:53 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147432) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147432&action=view) rpmlint results MUST: * name good * spec name good * license good * license matches * licenses are in %doc for all subpackages * spec is English * spec is legible * sources match * package builds on mock for i386 and x86_64 at least, didn't try ia64 * comment present for ExclusiveArch * BRs OK * no locales used * ldconfig used in %post and %postun properly * not relocatable * package owns its directories * no duplicate files * defattr present for each subpackage * %clean ok * consistent use of macros * packages contain code, not content * extra docs not presently being built, will be in -devel when they are. No need for a -doc subpackage. * nothing in %doc needed at runtime * headers and static libs in -devel package * no .pc files * -devel has the unversioned lib*.so files * -devel properly requires name = %{version}-%{release} * no GUI -> no .desktop * no directory ownership problems SHOULD: * source includes licenses * string translations not available * package builds in mock * package builds on all supported arches * package runs as expected * scriptlets sane * subpackages properly Require parent * no pkgconfig files Packaging Guidelines * changelog ok * tags ok * buildroot ok * summary and descriptions ok * encoding ok * docs ok * optflags ok * no static linked bins * no system lib duplication * no rpath * no config files * no desktop files * consistent macros * no %makeinstall * no locale * cp -a used * smp_mflags used * scriptlets ok You can ignore the rpmlint error about missing the ldconfig symlink, as it's present in the -devel package as PackagingGuidelines require. Bugs: * Docs permissions are 755, not 644 * source files, thus /usr/src/debug/* are 755, not 644 * package includes *.la files, need to be rm'd in %install and not installed in %files. * Obsoletes, but doesn't Provide, a couple packages * -libs Summary ends with a . * -devel %doc should include additional licenses of boost (boost 1.0, which is GPL-compatible) * add getopts (3-clause BSD) license to all %docs * add a MANIFEST in %doc noting which parts are covered by which license. * trivial rpmlint cleanups for spelling and the like APPROVED with the above trivial fixes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 04:59:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 23:59:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226260] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060459.l164x2a6031593@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226260 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-05 23:58 EST ------- alright, changes have been incorporated in perl-HTML-Parser-3.56-1.fc7, except for the BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) Let me know how it looks to you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 05:42:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 00:42:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226247] Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060542.l165gjPn032760@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226247 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-06 00:42 EST ------- Alright, new version 'perl-Convert-ASN1-0.21-1.fc7' built - does everything look ok to you? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 08:21:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 03:21:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060821.l168LtZa005096@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-06 03:21 EST ------- Thanks for review. No upstream -> no url tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 08:45:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 03:45:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060845.l168jUCk006378@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-06 03:45 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop-3.2-8.1.20060206cvs.fc6.src.rpm * Mon Feb 05 2007 Bernard Johnson - 3.2-8.1.20060206cvs - update to cvs 20060206 - update ntop-am.patch for cvs version - get rid of plugins patch and just remove cruft in spec file Already noted problems to fix: - lots of "linker input file unused because linking not done" messages during build - need to be tracked down - snmp plugin won't load because of undefined symbol: netsnmp_extract_table_info Mamoru/Patrice - Please see if this version gives you a SEGV as well. If it does please post a backtrace here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 08:51:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 03:51:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060851.l168pQJF006788@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-06 03:51 EST ------- I don't think it is different, because when I look into the gawk-3.1.5-doc.tar.gz package available from GNU mirror sites, then it contains the dvi file and all temporary TeX files with a log. And the second line there is "/tmp/gawk-3.1.5/doc/gawk.texi" which means the source file and from this file is also generated the info manual. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 09:21:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:21:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060921.l169LPWV009925@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-06 04:21 EST ------- - the source code files distributed in PEAR carry a copyright notice with the v3 license. Those copyright notices alone define how the source code is licensed, and the License tag on the package should reflect that and only that. - the .phar archive is the only way found to bootstrap PEAR - it is desirable to have PEAR build from a separate source RPM; it has an independent upstream (and hence release cycle) to PHP, and we can ship updates to this small self-contained part without revving the entire PHP package (which is large, fragile, and needs lots of QA for every update). There is insufficient motivation here to change that. - whatever package gets reviewed is subject to change as new upstream releases come out. 1.4.11 or 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. 1.4.11 is what's in Fedora at the moment and what's up for review. - the License tag, presence or lack of %build, $RPM_SOURCE_DIR vs %{SOURCEn} - changing these is a bikeshed painting exercise unless and until specified by a Fedora packaging guideline. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 09:21:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:21:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060921.l169LUTu009943@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-06 04:21 EST ------- They correspond wit the same manual, indeed, but an info manual isn't a substitute for a printable/viewable manual. I like info, but many dislike it, so I think that having a ps file additionaly is a good thing. An html manual or pdf manual would have been better but they are not shipped upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 09:34:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:34:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060934.l169YK7t010694@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 jnovy at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(pertusus at free.fr) ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-06 04:34 EST ------- Do you plan to release a new texi2html upstream release anytime soon? The preferred way is to update to an official upstream release instead of backporting changes to a 1.5 year old texi2html ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 09:42:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:42:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225661] Merge Review: createrepo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060942.l169gYmA011155@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: createrepo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225661 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 09:43:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:43:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060943.l169hUCv011224@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From Didier.Moens at dmbr.UGent.be 2007-02-06 04:43 EST ------- Tested with linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.7 : Exactly the same error as reported in comment #7. wacomcpl is still looking for a file or directory "[list" and/or "[list/pkgIndex.tcl", which does not exist. Marcel : maybe you could install your RPM on a clean machine (with no traces of linuxwacom builds), and strace wacomcpl to examine what exactly is missing ... I am not acquainted with Tcl/Tk, but I'd guess the TkxXinput libs need to be registered in a post-install spec scriptlet ? TIA for your efforts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 09:47:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:47:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060947.l169lR27011477@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-06 04:47 EST ------- httpd-mmn is a provided by httpd to ensure there is an ABI dependency for packages containing DSOs for httpd. httpd-devel is BRed by php. The -libtool15 patch probably is indeed redundant now. I'll remove it at the next rebuild and see if anything breaks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 09:50:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 04:50:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702060950.l169o9SM011612@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-06 04:50 EST ------- Seems to be caused by a missing openjade BuildRequires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:01:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:01:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226329] Merge Review: pycairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061001.l16A1FdX012142@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pycairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226329 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mbarnes at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:05:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:05:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061005.l16A5K79012428@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(pertusus at free.fr) | ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-06 05:05 EST ------- I am not the upstream maintainer, I am the main contributor. I already asked twice for a release... Do you want to update the ja translations before the release? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:12:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:12:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061012.l16AC8nO012798@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 jnovy at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(pertusus at free.fr) ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-06 05:12 EST ------- Definitely. Maybe it would be good to update to a current CVS snapshot to include your and other fixes to F7 texi2html if there's no will from the upstream maintainer to come out with the new upstream release. Is the current CVS texi2html in a good shape or do you know about any breakages/regressions introduced since texi2html-1.76? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:15:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:15:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225630] Merge Review: buildsys-macros In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061015.l16AFmuj012979@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: buildsys-macros https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225630 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dgregor at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:16:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225652] Merge Review: comps-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061016.l16AGAwi013025@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: comps-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225652 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|katzj at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:23:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:23:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061023.l16ANPQl013655@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-06 05:23 EST ------- Builds fine for me after adding the BR in the freshly created rawhide chroot installed with minimal dependencies on i386. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:38:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:38:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225895] Merge Review: icon-slicer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061038.l16AccYv014908@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: icon-slicer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225895 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |davidz at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 05:38 EST ------- Random first notes: * change BuildPrereq to BuildRequires * change Release to integer value, perhaps also using %{?dist} * change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * License field says MIT, but there is a copy of GPL in the tarball named COPYING! * ship at least ChangeLog and AUTHORS in %doc * use make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install instead of %makeinstall * change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) * use make %{?_smp_mflags} instead of make * provide URL field * provide complete URL of source tarball in the Source field -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:38:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:38:37 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225895] Merge Review: icon-slicer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061038.l16AcbJ3014894@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225895: Merge Review: icon-slicer Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader has denied Roozbeh Pournader 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225895 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader Random first notes: * change BuildPrereq to BuildRequires * change Release to integer value, perhaps also using %{?dist} * change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * License field says MIT, but there is a copy of GPL in the tarball named COPYING! * ship at least ChangeLog and AUTHORS in %doc * use make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install instead of %makeinstall * change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) * use make %{?_smp_mflags} instead of make * provide URL field * provide complete URL of source tarball in the Source field From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:39:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:39:28 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061039.l16AdSko015026@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225804: Merge Review: glib2 Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader has denied Matthias Clasen 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader (In reply to comment #13) > Some more fixes in -3.fc7. Thanks a lot. > It would make a lot more sense to give the package to e.g. > devhelp, which can actually use the content of those directories at runtime. Considering the discussions on bug 225875 (see comments by Patrice Dumas and Ralf Corsepius), please either own the directory or depend on something that does. I believe this is mostly to make sure that installing the package and then removing it doesn't leave empty directories around. All other blockers are fixed now. The package is fine if this problem gets fixed either way. Final rpmlint output: W: glib2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh W: glib2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: glib2-static devel-dependency glib2-devel W: glib2-static no-documentation W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libglib-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgobject-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgthread-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgmodule-2.0.a (All are fine) From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:39:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:39:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061039.l16AddAB015058@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |mclasen at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 05:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > Some more fixes in -3.fc7. Thanks a lot. > It would make a lot more sense to give the package to e.g. > devhelp, which can actually use the content of those directories at runtime. Considering the discussions on bug 225875 (see comments by Patrice Dumas and Ralf Corsepius), please either own the directory or depend on something that does. I believe this is mostly to make sure that installing the package and then removing it doesn't leave empty directories around. All other blockers are fixed now. The package is fine if this problem gets fixed either way. Final rpmlint output: W: glib2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh W: glib2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: glib2-static devel-dependency glib2-devel W: glib2-static no-documentation W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libglib-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgobject-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgthread-2.0.a W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgmodule-2.0.a (All are fine) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:43:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:43:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061043.l16AhKa9015616@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-06 05:43 EST ------- Fixed in gzip-1.3.10-1.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:44:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:44:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061044.l16AiSDR015777@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-06 05:44 EST ------- You are still using this auto* hacks - why? You should be able to condense all this into: %build %configure --disable-static make %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT make DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/*.la -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:53:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061053.l16Ar36O016874@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(pertusus at free.fr) | ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-06 05:53 EST ------- There are no known regressions. Some bugfixes, some new features, some documented incompatibilities. It should be perfectly right to use the CVS snapshot. In theory I could do a release, but I prefer if Derek takes care of that. The only remaining issue is a license issue, the documentation license is unclear. The original documentation author allowed us to use whatever license we want, but once again I'd like that Derek chose. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 10:55:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:55:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061055.l16AtnGt017205@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-06 05:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Definitely. I don't really get it. Do you prefer a release before you update the ja translation to match the changes in strings in cvs, do you want to fix them later, or are you indifferent? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 11:03:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:03:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061103.l16B3TJ5018032@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-06 06:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > Considering the discussions on bug 225875 (see comments by Patrice Dumas and > Ralf Corsepius), please either own the directory or depend on something that > does. I believe this is mostly to make sure that installing the package and then > removing it doesn't leave empty directories around. You are right on the spot - This is what this is all about. > All other blockers are fixed now. The package is fine In addition to what has already been said: When building the fc7/devel glib2 package on fc6, the test-suite hangs. > Final rpmlint output: > W: glib2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/glib2.sh > W: glib2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/glib2.csh These are OK. > E: glib2-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > E: glib2-static devel-dependency glib2-devel > W: glib2-static no-documentation > W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libglib-2.0.a > W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgobject-2.0.a > W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgthread-2.0.a > W: glib2-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /lib/libgmodule-2.0.a These are not fine. glib2 can install its runtime libs into /lib if it needs to, but installing devel-libs there is NOT OK. Matthias, please check how glibc is being packaged. They install the runtime-parts into /lib and install the devel parts to %{_libdir} (Technically this should not be much more than an ordinary %configure plus moving the lib*.so.* in %install) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 11:11:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:11:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061111.l16BBxGs019024@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-06 06:11 EST ------- I could update the ja translation only as we have translation included separately in the RH CVS, but as I understand it now, I need to update to the texi2html cvs snapshot in the same time so that the strings match the newer version of texi2html? Or are the new translations compatible with the old texi2html-1.76? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 11:25:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:25:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061125.l16BPc14019994@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 jnovy at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(rc040203 at freenet.d | |e) ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-06 06:25 EST ------- Yeah, I can remove the autofoo stuff, but I'm not sure about removing the libusb static library. libusb is low-level enough that someone would really wish to link against libusb statically, so how about introducing libusb-static package shipping static stuff? Simply removing the static libs completely now as you propose is no a good way to follow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 11:29:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:29:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061129.l16BTG3S020197@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-06 06:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > I could update the ja translation only as we have translation included > separately in the RH CVS, I was thinking that you would have wanted to update them in the texi2html CVS... such that they are updated for the next upstream release. > but as I understand it now, I need to update to the > texi2html cvs snapshot in the same time so that the strings match the newer > version of texi2html? The ja translation is now in texi2html CVS, so if you update to the cvs snapshot the ja translation will be in the snapshot, and not (only) in RH CVS anymore -- except if you want to patch it in RH CVS. > Or are the new translations compatible with the old > texi2html-1.76? No, they aren't, in the sense that translations that were in texi2html-1.76 and are not in texi2html-1.77/1.78 are in the OBSOLETE_STRINGS hash. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 11:36:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061136.l16Ba81d020669@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 06:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > In addition to what has already been said: When building the fc7/devel glib2 > package on fc6, the test-suite hangs. Then there was a problem! It doesn't always happen, but yes, it sometimes hanged on me (during or after the thread-related tests, IIRC). I thought it's because of not clean build environment, because of its sometimes-happening-sometimes-not nature. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 11:40:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:40:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061140.l16BeeVI021069@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-06 06:40 EST ------- Ok, thanks for the clarification. Could you please ask Derek if he could do a new texi2html release once again maybe even with a link to this bug? If you agree, I'll wait for a week or so and if no new release is out I'm going to package a texi2html cvs snapshot which contains the newer ja translations. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 11:59:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 06:59:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061159.l16BxkH5021905@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-06 06:59 EST ------- INFORMATION: When I remove at-spi and gail forcely, deluge works on FC-devel, too. Actually it seems that FC-devel gail are causing problems on several packages. For me, two packages I maintain crash on FC-devel. So I will restart reviewing on this package, assuming that deluge freeze is not due to deluge itself. Please wait... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 12:12:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:12:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061212.l16CCB9M022494@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 mlichvar at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mlichvar at redhat.com |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mlichvar at redhat.com 2007-02-06 07:11 EST ------- Should be fixed in ncurses-5.6-3.20070203.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 12:13:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:13:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061213.l16CDBCn022564@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-06 07:13 EST ------- Fixed in unzip-5.52-3.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 12:14:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:14:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061214.l16CE4R5022637@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 12:14:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:14:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061214.l16CEVJP022670@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 12:16:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:16:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226400] Merge Review: screen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061216.l16CGv6e022752@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: screen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226400 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-06 07:16 EST ------- Thank you for your review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 12:18:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:18:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226526] Merge Review: vim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061218.l16CIkOh022845@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226526 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-06 07:18 EST ------- vim-7.0.191-1.fc7 has lots of spec file fixes, please don't review older releases -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 12:59:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 07:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226229] Merge Review: pango In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061259.l16CxS2W025314@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pango https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226229 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 07:59 EST ------- Bad news! says that the license must be in one of the three lists. Since FTL is nowhere on those lists, unless FSF reviews it or OSI approves it, we may need to consider pango and freetype GPL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:01:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:01:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225770] Merge Review: freetype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061301.l16D1NGc025426@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: freetype https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225770 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 08:01 EST ------- Bad news! says that the license must be in one of the three lists. Since FTL is nowhere on those lists, unless FSF reviews it or OSI approves it, we may need to consider pango and freetype GPL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:33:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:33:04 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225630] Merge Review: buildsys-macros In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061333.l16DX4J0026602@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225630: Merge Review: buildsys-macros Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader has granted Roozbeh Pournader 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225630 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader Minor remaining issues: MUST: US English * I am not a native speaker, but I think you need a "the" before 'dist' in the package description: "define the product version and *the* 'dist' tag". MUST: rpmlint output W: buildsys-macros conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rpm/macros.disttag This is bad, I think. Using %config(noreplace) is recommended, although I don't see any real difference, as I don't think anybody may install this package on his normal box where it may be updated. It's not in the normal repos IIRC. W: buildsys-macros no-documentation It's fine. The bureaucracy: MUST: named fine MUST: spec file named fine MUST: packaging guidelines met (except noreplace, mentioned above) MUST: license fine MUST: no license file needed as it's public domain MUST: spec file was made legible MUST: no source MUST: builds into noarch on FC6/i386 MUST: no excludearch MUST: no special build deps MUST: no locale MUST: not a lib MUST: not relocatable MUST: requires rpm that owns /etc/rpm MUST: permissions fine MUST: no dup files MUST: file permissions fine MUST: %clean section exists MUST: macro use fine MUST: package has code MUST: no large docs MUST: no %doc MUST: no header or static lib MUST: no *.pc MUST: no *.so.* MUST: no -devel MUST: no *.la MUST: not GUI MUST: doesn't own others' files Package is approved. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:33:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:33:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225630] Merge Review: buildsys-macros In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061333.l16DXGNY026619@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: buildsys-macros https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225630 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |dgregor at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 08:33 EST ------- Minor remaining issues: MUST: US English * I am not a native speaker, but I think you need a "the" before 'dist' in the package description: "define the product version and *the* 'dist' tag". MUST: rpmlint output W: buildsys-macros conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rpm/macros.disttag This is bad, I think. Using %config(noreplace) is recommended, although I don't see any real difference, as I don't think anybody may install this package on his normal box where it may be updated. It's not in the normal repos IIRC. W: buildsys-macros no-documentation It's fine. The bureaucracy: MUST: named fine MUST: spec file named fine MUST: packaging guidelines met (except noreplace, mentioned above) MUST: license fine MUST: no license file needed as it's public domain MUST: spec file was made legible MUST: no source MUST: builds into noarch on FC6/i386 MUST: no excludearch MUST: no special build deps MUST: no locale MUST: not a lib MUST: not relocatable MUST: requires rpm that owns /etc/rpm MUST: permissions fine MUST: no dup files MUST: file permissions fine MUST: %clean section exists MUST: macro use fine MUST: package has code MUST: no large docs MUST: no %doc MUST: no header or static lib MUST: no *.pc MUST: no *.so.* MUST: no -devel MUST: no *.la MUST: not GUI MUST: doesn't own others' files Package is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:38:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:38:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061338.l16DcTr3026901@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-06 08:38 EST ------- glibc doesn't install a .so symlink at all, /usr/lib/libc.so is a linker script, I don't think looking at glibc packaging will be very instructive. Moving everything in -devel and -static to /usr will take some experimenting, and has the potential to break things, but sure, I can do that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:48:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:48:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061348.l16DmJWq027729@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-06 08:48 EST ------- The fact /usr/lib/libc.so is a linker script is irrelevant, the package layout is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:49:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061349.l16DnvtA027866@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:50:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061350.l16DoG4v027908@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:50:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:50:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061350.l16Domf3027953@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|varekova at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:51:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061351.l16Dpgu8028047@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-06 08:51 EST ------- "Source:" is 404 not found. Here is v1.0.4: http://www.bzip.org/1.0.4/bzip2-1.0.4.tar.gz > Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version} There is an automatic dependency on the library sonames already, btw. > Requires(post) and postun missing for -libs, /sbin/ldconfig No, they are automatic due to "-p". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:55:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061355.l16DthG4028520@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|caillon at redhat.com |bdpepple at ameritech.net -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:55:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:55:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061355.l16DtwDP028575@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mmaslano at redhat.com |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 13:59:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:59:45 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225652] Merge Review: comps-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061359.l16DxjnQ029016@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225652: Merge Review: comps-extras Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader has denied Jeremy Katz 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225652 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader (In reply to comment #2) > > W: comps-extras no-url-tag > > Yep, there's not one. Use http://www.fedoraproject.org/ then. > There isn't an upstream tarball location. The upstream _are_ the packages > that are built. If there's a source control system with public anonymous access, please point to that. Checking the included tarball against the upstream tarballs are a MUST item in the review list. (BLOCKER) > > * GPL may not be a very appropriate license for a set of PNG images > > It's not normal, but it's fine. Then please include a copy of the GPL license in the source tarball (and , and add a note somewhere in the tarball or the comment field of the image files themselves that the files are licensed under the GPL. Presently, the only mention of the license is the spec file, which means that one cannot confirm that it is used correctly. If there is no mention of free software license somewhere, one should assume that it's proprietary, at least according to the US law. (BLOCKER) > Given that there's nothing actually done, this doesn't actually make a > difference Agreed. But then please remove the line "make" from the %build section. The section is allowed to be empty. > One better; added the directory as %dir and then the files underneath. Choice of style really, but keeping two copies of the same info in two different places is not what I would personally recommend. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:00:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:00:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225652] Merge Review: comps-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061400.l16E075h029068@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: comps-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225652 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |katzj at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 08:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > > W: comps-extras no-url-tag > > Yep, there's not one. Use http://www.fedoraproject.org/ then. > There isn't an upstream tarball location. The upstream _are_ the packages > that are built. If there's a source control system with public anonymous access, please point to that. Checking the included tarball against the upstream tarballs are a MUST item in the review list. (BLOCKER) > > * GPL may not be a very appropriate license for a set of PNG images > > It's not normal, but it's fine. Then please include a copy of the GPL license in the source tarball (and , and add a note somewhere in the tarball or the comment field of the image files themselves that the files are licensed under the GPL. Presently, the only mention of the license is the spec file, which means that one cannot confirm that it is used correctly. If there is no mention of free software license somewhere, one should assume that it's proprietary, at least according to the US law. (BLOCKER) > Given that there's nothing actually done, this doesn't actually make a > difference Agreed. But then please remove the line "make" from the %build section. The section is allowed to be empty. > One better; added the directory as %dir and then the files underneath. Choice of style really, but keeping two copies of the same info in two different places is not what I would personally recommend. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:07:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:07:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061407.l16E7s0S029763@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-06 09:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > > Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version} > > There is an automatic dependency on the library sonames already, btw. Indeed, but I think it is better if an update of the main package with, say yum update bzip2 triggers an update of the -libs if there is a newer version. > > Requires(post) and postun missing for -libs, /sbin/ldconfig > > No, they are automatic due to "-p". Oops... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:15:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:15:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227500] New: Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library 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=227500 Summary: Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: robert at marcanoonline.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/svnkit/svnkit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/svnkit/svnkit-1.1.1-1.src.rpm Description: SVNKit is a pure Java Subversion client library. You would like to use SVNKit when you need to access or modify Subversion repository from your Java application, be it a standalone program, plugin or web application. Being a pure Java program, SVNKit doesn't need any additional configuration or native binaries to work on any OS that runs Java. This library is a renamed version of the javasvn package I mantain, I plan to mark it as dead when all dependencies all resolved (currently only eclipse-subclipse) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:18:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:18:23 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226329] Merge Review: pycairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061418.l16EIN0g030761@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226329: Merge Review: pycairo Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader has denied Roozbeh Pournader 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226329 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader More necessary and suggested changes: * You forgot to change the BuildRoot * License is actually LGPL/MPL, while the License field only says LGPL. (BLOCKER) * The description and the summary field say exactly the same thing. Expand the description field. * I do not know about the specifics of the dependency on cairo, but are you sure the dependency is actually >= 1.2.6 and not = 1.2.6? * The extra info "-n pycairo-%{version}" is not necessary, as the tarball gets unpacked to the same directory anyway. Just use "%setup -q". * You should not use .fc7 and such in %changelog comments (unless your change is only for that version of Fedora, which is not the case here) I believe that is all, but I have not done a check-list check yet. Will do that as soon as you fix these. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:18:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:18:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226329] Merge Review: pycairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061418.l16EIYeV030785@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pycairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226329 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |mbarnes at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 09:18 EST ------- More necessary and suggested changes: * You forgot to change the BuildRoot * License is actually LGPL/MPL, while the License field only says LGPL. (BLOCKER) * The description and the summary field say exactly the same thing. Expand the description field. * I do not know about the specifics of the dependency on cairo, but are you sure the dependency is actually >= 1.2.6 and not = 1.2.6? * The extra info "-n pycairo-%{version}" is not necessary, as the tarball gets unpacked to the same directory anyway. Just use "%setup -q". * You should not use .fc7 and such in %changelog comments (unless your change is only for that version of Fedora, which is not the case here) I believe that is all, but I have not done a check-list check yet. Will do that as soon as you fix these. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:20:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226478] Merge Review: tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061420.l16EKOoH030978@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226478 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-06 09:20 EST ------- tar-1.16.1.tar.bz2 plus sig is available upstream. > Prereq: info Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info > %makeinstall bindir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/bin libexecdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/sbin Standard make install with DESTDIR ought to be preferred, provided that it works: make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT bindir=/bin libexecdir=/sbin install The %makeinstall macro overrides many Make variables, which can lead to %buildroot finding its way into built files. > install -c -m Wherever files are installed manually, add option "-p" to preserve time-stamps, so files which haven't changed for a long time are easier to spot when browsing installed package contents. > BuildRoot: ... Doesn't match the Fedora standard %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) and might be rejected as soon as it might become mandatory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:24:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:24:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061424.l16EOtCd031270@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-06 09:24 EST ------- I have not updated to 2.32 - but everything else should be fixed in zip-2.31-2.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:27:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:27:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226418] Merge Review: sharutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061427.l16ERqEk031599@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sharutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226418 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-06 09:27 EST ------- There is a newer 4.6.3 release plus sig upstream: ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/sharutils/REL-4.6.3/ > Prereq: /sbin/install-info Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info > %makeinstall Standard make install with DESTDIR ought to be preferred, provided that it works: make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install The %makeinstall macro overrides many Make variables, which can lead to %buildroot finding its way into built files. > mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_docdir}-%{name}-%{version} This line should be unnecessary for files installed with %doc. > BuildRoot: ... Doesn't match the Fedora standard %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) and might be rejected as soon as it might become mandatory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:28:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:28:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225661] Merge Review: createrepo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061428.l16ESKbE031675@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: createrepo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225661 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 09:28 EST ------- Ropening in case the author wishes to do something about the changes suggested in comment #6. (fedora-review remains approved.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:28:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:28:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061428.l16EShst031735@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:36:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:36:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225945] Merge Review: jfsutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061436.l16EafN1032270@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jfsutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225945 jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |shaggy at linux.vnet.ibm.com ------- Additional Comments From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org 2007-02-06 09:36 EST ------- I plan on taking this package over via the orphan package process. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:39:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:39:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225247] Merge Review: anacron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061439.l16EdQhw032452@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jspaleta at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-06 09:39 EST ------- Thanks for review. src.rpm I change some other things and my rpmlint says only: E: anacron executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/anacron W: anacron service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/anacron W: anacron incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/anacron $prog W: anacron no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/anacron rpm W: anacron strange-permission anacron.init 0755 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:40:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:40:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061440.l16Ee4HQ032499@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-06 09:40 EST ------- Okay, the install-info triggers caused all sorts of breakage because of adding it to the %post script (comment #9) and as a result adding a prereq for it. install-info requires bash, so it's a dep loop. But this comment in the spec file convinced me that we don't need the triggers either: # ***** bash doesn't use install-info. It's always listed in %{_infodir}/dir # to prevent prereq loops So 3.2-7.fc7, tagged and built just now, is my re-submitted package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:45:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:45:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061445.l16EjvS9000348@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|twaugh at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-06 09:45 EST ------- (Reassigning back to Kevin -- is that what we're doing?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:51:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:51:58 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226569] Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061451.l16Epw1s000645@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226569: Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader has denied Roozbeh Pournader 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226569 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader Random notes: * License (MIT/X11 mentioned) cannot be confirmed as being free/open source, as the only file that is shipped in the package lacks any license header and nothing else in the package talks about the file's license. (BLOCKER) * As the "make" line in %build does nothing, you may remove it. * The package puts files in /usr/share/sgml without owning the directory or depending on any other package that owns the directory. (BLOCKER) From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:51:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:51:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226569] Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061451.l16Epw5Q000649@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226569 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 09:51 EST ------- Random notes: * License (MIT/X11 mentioned) cannot be confirmed as being free/open source, as the only file that is shipped in the package lacks any license header and nothing else in the package talks about the file's license. (BLOCKER) * As the "make" line in %build does nothing, you may remove it. * The package puts files in /usr/share/sgml without owning the directory or depending on any other package that owns the directory. (BLOCKER) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 14:59:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 09:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061459.l16Ex6S9001090@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-06 09:59 EST ------- > * Preserve timestamps when installing files Not sure what I need to change for this. > W: unix2dos summary-not-capitalized unix2dos - UNIX to DOS text file format > converter > Don't use the name in the Summary Got a better summary I can put in there? > W: unix2dos invalid-license distributable It comes with its own COPYRIGHT file, which is not a canned license. What should I put for 'License:'? > W: unix2dos no-url-tag No upstream any more as far as I can tell. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 15:04:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:04:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 212003] Review Request: mugshot - Companion software for mugshot.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061504.l16F4xaY001561@bugzilla.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: mugshot - Companion software for mugshot.org https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212003 ------- Additional Comments From thomas at apestaart.org 2007-02-06 10:04 EST ------- Anthony, what update is needed ? The client is GPL, and the server license is irrelevant to a package of the client. AFAICT this can proceed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 15:15:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:15:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061515.l16FF9xB002458@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(rc040203 at freenet.d| |e) | ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-06 10:15 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > I'm not sure about removing the libusb > static library. I can't imagine any reason for needing the static libs, so I am highly in favor of removing them. Nevertheless, introducing *-static would be a compromize, to force those deps on static libs to become apparent and give those packages more time to move to shared libs rsp. to provide a precendence for a case in which static libs are required. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 15:19:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:19:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226478] Merge Review: tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061519.l16FJ82q002818@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226478 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-06 10:19 EST ------- > tar-1.16.1.tar.bz2 plus sig is available upstream. I know about it, but there are still problems with tar-1.16.1.(#226917) The rest is fixed in: tar-1.15.1-26.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 15:21:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:21:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225630] Merge Review: buildsys-macros In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061521.l16FLoTQ003194@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: buildsys-macros https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225630 ------- Additional Comments From dgregor at redhat.com 2007-02-06 10:21 EST ------- Thanks again for the review. I agree that %config(noreplace) makes sense even though this package isn't expected to be installed by end users. Fixes checked in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 15:36:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:36:12 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225797] Merge Review: gimp-data-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061536.l16FaCAa004023@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225797: Merge Review: gimp-data-extras Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader has denied Roozbeh Pournader 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225797 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader Random first notes: * Release (1.1.1) should be an integer. You may also add %{?dist} if you wish. * separate the BuildRequires into two lines. It's not very obvious now. * change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * remove the dot at the end of Summary. * As /usr/bin is in the execution path, saying /usr/bin/gimptool in the install section is not necessary. Just use "gimptool", which makes the spec more legible. * Use %defattr (-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr (-, root, root) * The license filed says GPL, while there is nothing in the source tarball that confirms that. The COPYING file is also empty. (BLOCKER) * You should ship some of the files as %doc (at least AUTHORS, ChangeLog, NEWS, and README). * The spec file is not UTF-8. (BLOCKER) * The install root is not cleaned at the beginning of %install From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 15:36:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:36:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225797] Merge Review: gimp-data-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061536.l16FaNNp004049@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gimp-data-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225797 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |nphilipp at redhat.com CC| |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-06 10:36 EST ------- Random first notes: * Release (1.1.1) should be an integer. You may also add %{?dist} if you wish. * separate the BuildRequires into two lines. It's not very obvious now. * change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * remove the dot at the end of Summary. * As /usr/bin is in the execution path, saying /usr/bin/gimptool in the install section is not necessary. Just use "gimptool", which makes the spec more legible. * Use %defattr (-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr (-, root, root) * The license filed says GPL, while there is nothing in the source tarball that confirms that. The COPYING file is also empty. (BLOCKER) * You should ship some of the files as %doc (at least AUTHORS, ChangeLog, NEWS, and README). * The spec file is not UTF-8. (BLOCKER) * The install root is not cleaned at the beginning of %install -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 15:36:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:36:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061536.l16Fap20004094@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From paskalis at di.uoa.gr 2007-02-06 10:36 EST ------- Updated to an actually usable spec: http://gallagher.di.uoa.gr/any/rpms/privoxy/privoxy.spec http://gallagher.di.uoa.gr/any/rpms/privoxy/privoxy-3.0.6-4.src.rpm * Tue Feb 06 2007 Sarantis Paskalis 3.0.6-4 - remove unnecessary perl invocation - fix Requires(pre), (post), (preun) and (postun) for scriptlets - fix rpmlint 'conffile-marked-as-executable' - fix other stuff, so that it can actually be installed and erased - do not remove user/group on erase because due to logs remaining -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:02:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:02:45 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226466] Merge Review: system-config-printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061602.l16G2jO8006248@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226466: Merge Review: system-config-printer Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Tim Waugh has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226466 From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:02:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:02:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226466] Merge Review: system-config-printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061602.l16G2jgB006252@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: system-config-printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226466 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:03:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:03:31 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061603.l16G3VSQ006378@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226445: Merge Review: symlinks Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Tim Waugh has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:03:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:03:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061603.l16G3V8f006382@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:03:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:03:51 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061603.l16G3pA3006426@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226436: Merge Review: statserial Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Tim Waugh has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:03:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:03:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061603.l16G3qb4006430@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:04:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:04:11 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226415] Merge Review: sgml-common In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061604.l16G4BIw006476@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226415: Merge Review: sgml-common Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Tim Waugh has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226415 From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:04:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:04:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226415] Merge Review: sgml-common In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061604.l16G4CKT006482@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sgml-common https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226415 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:04:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:04:24 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061604.l16G4Oik006509@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226411: Merge Review: setserial Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Tim Waugh has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:04:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:04:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061604.l16G4OL5006514@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:15:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:15:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226247] Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061615.l16GFLMG007300@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226247 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-06 11:15 EST ------- Robin, Looks good. jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:15:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:15:20 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226247] Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061615.l16GFKQl007292@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226247: Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jose Pedro Oliveira has granted Jose Pedro Oliveira 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226247 ------- Additional Comments from Jose Pedro Oliveira Robin, Looks good. jpo From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:15:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:15:36 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226260] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061615.l16GFa1o007330@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226260: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jose Pedro Oliveira has granted Jose Pedro Oliveira 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226260 ------- Additional Comments from Jose Pedro Oliveira Robin, Looks good. jpo From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:15:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:15:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226260] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061615.l16GFkQc007344@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226260 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-06 11:15 EST ------- Robin, Looks good. jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:28:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:28:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061628.l16GS229008335@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-06 11:28 EST ------- Thanks! > * New upstream version (6.0) is available from http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/ghostscript/ 6.0 is an older release (see the timestamp). New package built: 5.50-15.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:30:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:30:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061630.l16GU3E3008497@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-06 11:29 EST ------- That patch is an issue for upstream, not review. Release added to requires, although if the translations break in an incompatible way between a -1 and -2, we've got bigger issues. (That's why the requires is there.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:43:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:43:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225706] Merge Review: dos2unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061643.l16GhaBu009630@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dos2unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225706 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-06 11:43 EST ------- > * No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag. I don't think there is an upstream for this package any longer. > W: dos2unix invalid-license Freely distributable (you can use GPL) The COPYRIGHT file describes the license. It is not GNU GPL. New package: 3.1-28.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 16:57:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:57:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061657.l16GvfeD010778@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-06 11:57 EST ------- A very interesting case ;) 1. rpmlint: W: symlinks summary-ended-with-dot A utility which maintains a system's symbolic links. Stylishness - Should be fixed. W: symlinks invalid-license distributable More on this below. W: symlinks no-url-tag Doesn't make much sense, but to satisfy the burecrats, I'd propose to use URL: ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/utils/file/ 2. License Could not find an explict license, but a terse "freely distributably" inside of the *.lsm. tsx-11 origin => Very old, widely used and known to be distributable package - IMO "distributable" is the correct term for this. 3. *.spec: Would you explain the getconf-call in: make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS $(getconf LFS_CFLAGS)" getconf causes the package to use the flags it receives from system the package is being built on => - Potential (I am inclined to think almost zero) risk of non-deterministic build results when users rebuild the package - Not much of an issue when building the package inside of a build system as part of a distro, except that it might tie this package to the specific environment it is being built on - I am not sure what to do about it. Hardcoding? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:01:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:01:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061701.l16H10j9010983@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-06 12:00 EST ------- Well, I have to say again that tcl 8.5 still complains about "BLT: no"... however, as long as I checked the souce code, this does not change the result of compilation, so I think this can be ignored. For me -5 seems okay, just one question. - Why does some tcl files have executable permission with shebang, while some don't? Should all files should have both (i.e. executable permission with shebang) or all files should not, or current state has some meaning? (I think this may not a big issue, however, I just want to know what is occurring here). = A note: copyright.ps disappeared. While copyright.ps seems to say that this is MIT, however, as long as I read bug 226715, upstream want to claim that this is GPL. So currently copyright.ps can be ignored (my recognition is that the upstream of irsim and magic is the same, is this correct?). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:06:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:06:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061706.l16H6btV011229@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|twaugh at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:09:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061709.l16H9f9t011380@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-06 12:09 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > - the source code files distributed in PEAR carry a copyright notice with the v3 > license. Those copyright notices alone define how the source code is licensed, > and the License tag on the package should reflect that and only that. Indeed the source files specify the 3.0 license and this carries more weight than the license linked to on the web site. Thank you for clarifying this. > > - the .phar archive is the only way found to bootstrap PEAR Indeed, however the point is we do not need to bootstrap PEAR. > > - it is desirable to have PEAR build from a separate source RPM; it has an > independent upstream (and hence release cycle) to PHP, and we can ship updates > to this small self-contained part without revving the entire PHP package (which > is large, fragile, and needs lots of QA for every update). There is > insufficient motivation here to change that. Okay, now you are contradicting yourself. There are several points I should make in reards to this statement: 1) It is desirable to have the PEAR class separate from php, (NOT the pear installer). Therefore we should have a php-pear-PEAR rpm that contains ONLY the PEAR class. The PEAR *class* is what is updated frequently, and the pear installer does *NOT* get updated frequently. 2) It makes perfect sense to include the pear INSTALLER with the php class. This has several very important benefits. First it allows us to package the classes individually using the standard default template spec files. It allows us to use the standard .tgz files for the classes. This allows us better auditing and allows us better freedom for updates to the classes. And all the classes will be packaged in seperate SRPMS for better consistency and just makes sense. 3) There is HUGE motivation to change this. I do not understand why you do not see it. 4) The bootstrapping method uses a source file which changes at every single release, there is no way for someone to download an old version of the bootstrap code. 5) The bootstrap code bunches several pear classes together in a large lump sum which actually makes it more difficult to make incremental updates which contradicts the reasoning you mention above. 6) PEAR 1.5.0 adds a gtk and web interface, by using the bootstrapping method you again bring in all these extra packages (some of which are already packaged seperately) into a single lump sum. This even makes it more desirable to NOT use the bootstrapping method and to simply add the installer in the php package. 7) with PEAR 1.5.0 there are already sepearate packages classes which PEAR now depends on therefore making the bootstrapping method conflict and clash with existing packages. 8) The bottom line is that this *has* to be done. We can no longer use the bootstrap method because it is conflicting with too many existing packages and it is simply causes a big mess and many problems. It has to be done this way. If you need help I will be glad to help you. > > - whatever package gets reviewed is subject to change as new upstream releases > come out. 1.4.11 or 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. 1.4.11 is what's in Fedora at the moment > and what's up for review. Sir, I am getting sick and tired of explaining this to you and you are trying my patience! Pear 1.5.0 is going to bring on many signifacnt changes, it adds php-gtk, and a web installer among other things. This means it is even more important to break these packages up into sepearate packages and to include the pear installer in the php package like I suggested. These changes are significant enough for me to demand that they be done before the formal review. We are going to be working together with this and major changes to how php and php-pear are packaged are going to have to be made. I am not here to make your life difficult, I am here to try and assist you on the best way to package this. I hope that you understand the bootstrap method is just simply no longer going to work, especially now with pear 1.5.0. > - the License tag, presence or lack of %build, $RPM_SOURCE_DIR vs %{SOURCEn} - > changing these is a bikeshed painting exercise unless and until specified by a > Fedora packaging guideline. Mr Orton, I have already brought this up with fedora packaging members and several the suggestions I have made come straight from the packaging committee! If you want to bring this up to them again personally, I can do that. So instead of spending 10 seconds making a simple benign change, you want to be stubborn and escalate this to the packaging committee and waste their time with this nonsense? We can do that if you want, but I strongly urge you to put your ego aside and just make the simple benign trivial changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:10:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:10:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061710.l16HA1kB011417@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|twaugh at redhat.com |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-06 12:09 EST ------- Thanks! Should be all fixed in 1.5.0-6.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:16:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:16:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226229] Merge Review: pango In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061716.l16HGfT7011856@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pango https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226229 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-06 12:16 EST ------- We're kinda out of it: 2 of 3 FreeType developers have agreed to changing the GPL+FTL to LGPL+FTL for HarfBuzz. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:17:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:17:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225770] Merge Review: freetype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061717.l16HHJqm011946@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: freetype https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225770 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-06 12:17 EST ------- So we mark it as GPL. Do you think anything will happen ever?! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:18:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:18:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061718.l16HIZWw012097@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-06 12:18 EST ------- Well, I have not checked -3, however,(In reply to comment #7) > - %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/pythoncad/prefs.py* > I've only excluded from package prefs.py? which are commonly unneeded! > prefs.py is a config file and is also refered in %site_lib/preferences.py Umm.. this is not. Generic/preferences.py says: ------------------------------------------------- 1223 try: 1224 _f, _p, _d = imp.find_module('prefs', ['/etc/pythoncad']) 1225 if _f is not None: 1226 try: ------------------------------------------------- This means that Generic/preferences.py tries to import /etc/pythoncad/prefs.py as a module. When this is done, what occurs is... ------------------- [root at localhost pythoncad]# rm -f *pyc *pyo [root at localhost pythoncad]# ls -al total 52 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 7 02:13 . drwxr-xr-x 146 root root 16384 Feb 7 00:23 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18527 Sep 19 04:36 prefs.py [root at localhost pythoncad]# gtkpycad [root at localhost pythoncad]# ls -al total 60 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 7 02:14 . drwxr-xr-x 146 root root 16384 Feb 7 00:23 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18527 Sep 19 04:36 prefs.py -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1466 Feb 7 02:14 prefs.pyc ------------------------------ ... you can see that prefs.pyc is created. Python tries to optimize (i.e. compile) python script when it is loaded as a module if it is possible automatically, and this should not be done under /etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:20:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:20:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061720.l16HKRhr012214@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-06 12:20 EST ------- Thanks. The purpose of the getconf call is to build with large file support. The exact flags to do this vary from platform to platform. It basically comes down to '-D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64' for 32-bit hosts and nothing at all for 64-bit hosts as far as I am aware. Tagged and built 1.2-27.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:31:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:31:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061731.l16HVhAZ012999@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(twaugh at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-06 12:31 EST ------- Hi Tim, > Not sure what I need to change for this. To preserve timestamps, use install -p or cp -p > Got a better summary I can put in there? "UNIX to DOS text file format converter" sounds good to me One of the guidelines is to not repeat the name of the package in the summary, that's all. > It comes with its own COPYRIGHT file, which is not a canned license. What > should I put for 'License:'? I'm not sure what rpmlint thinks are valid licenses. Distributable will do. > No upstream any more as far as I can tell. That's ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:39:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:39:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061739.l16HdNDa013720@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review-, |fedora-review? |needinfo?(twaugh at redhat.com)| ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-06 12:39 EST ------- Okay, thanks. Tagged and built as 2.2-27.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 17:59:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061759.l16Hxf62014864@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-06 12:59 EST ------- Sorry, please revert the issue of python config files under /etc. i.e. please leave config files under /etc/ as it is, with .py? files _undeleted_. Would you upload a new spec/srpm again? Then I will review this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 18:06:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:06:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061806.l16I6uxo015265@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 jorton at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rpm at timj.co.uk ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-06 13:06 EST ------- I can't follow most of that. The PEAR class *is* the PEAR installer: they are one and the same thing. All the PHP tarball does to "install PEAR" is to run a .phar exactly like php-pear.spec does. The only .phar available is 1.5.0RC2, and the .tgz for PEAR seems to call itself 1.5.0RC3 in the package.xml - CC added for timj; Tim, are you in a position to fix this upstream? php-pear.spec seems to work fine with zero lines of packaging changes with that installer anyway, so what is the big deal with the upgrade? The non-CLI Frontends should be packaged separately from php-pear; I don't see how that is relevant. I have no philosophical objection to moving the PEAR packages bundled with the .phar into subpackages, I'm just not convinced it's technically worth it; XML_RPC at least probably is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 18:12:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:12:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226260] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061812.l16ICMTS015625@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226260 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jpo at di.uminho.pt |rnorwood at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-06 13:12 EST ------- ok, I think this gets assigned back to me now. (http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 18:13:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:13:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226247] Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061813.l16ID6TI015670@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Convert-ASN1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226247 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jpo at di.uminho.pt |rnorwood at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-06 13:12 EST ------- Ok, thanks - I think this gets assigned to me now: (http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 18:18:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:18:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061818.l16IIoGw016130@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk 2007-02-06 13:18 EST ------- I will respond a bit more later but for now some background for Chris and other interested parties re: bootstrapping/separation: - bug #173810 - http://www.zend.com/lists/pear-dev/200604/msg00153.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 18:36:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:36:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061836.l16IaSD7017272@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 rpm at timj.co.uk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- External Bug| |http://bugs.php.net/show_bug Reference| |.cgi?id=10038 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 18:38:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061838.l16Icbwx017521@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 rpm at timj.co.uk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- External Bug| |http://pear.php.net/bugs//sh Reference| |ow_bug.cgi?id=10038 External Bug|http://bugs.php.net/show_bug| Reference|.cgi?id=10038 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 18:50:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:50:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061850.l16Io3dr018547@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro BugsThisDependsOn| |163778 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 18:51:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:51:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061851.l16IpqrG018797@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk 2007-02-06 13:51 EST ------- The upstream license is definitively PHP License 3.0. Every source file has that. The license link on the package home page is bogus and is a bug in the web UI of PEAR - filed upstream : bug http://pear.php.net/bugs/10038 . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 18:52:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:52:44 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061852.l16Iqi1Y018955@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226514: Merge Review: unix2dos Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Ruben Kerkhof has granted Tim Waugh 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 ------- Additional Comments from Ruben Kerkhof Ah, Distributable (with a capital D) is a valid license. distributable is not. DEFAULT_VALID_LICENSES in /usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py contains a list of valid licenses. If you can change that, it would be nice. Since I see no further blockers, this package is approved. Please leave the ticket assigned to yourself. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 18:52:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061852.l16Iqj50018967@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-06 13:52 EST ------- Ah, Distributable (with a capital D) is a valid license. distributable is not. DEFAULT_VALID_LICENSES in /usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py contains a list of valid licenses. If you can change that, it would be nice. Since I see no further blockers, this package is approved. Please leave the ticket assigned to yourself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:14:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:14:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 212003] Review Request: mugshot - Companion software for mugshot.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061914.l16JEFUi020421@bugzilla.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: mugshot - Companion software for mugshot.org https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=212003 ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2007-02-06 14:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > Anthony, > > what update is needed ? The client is GPL, and the server license is irrelevant > to a package of the client. AFAICT this can proceed. I believe the intent is for the client to be GPL, but it currently comes with an EULA wrapper. My understanding is that the mugshot team is working with RH legal to remove the wrapper from the client package. I'm just waiting for a package update that removes the EULA text. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:14:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:14:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061914.l16JEmoH020504@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-06 14:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > I can't follow most of that. The PEAR class *is* the PEAR installer: they are > one and the same thing. All the PHP tarball does to "install PEAR" is to run a > .phar exactly like php-pear.spec does. I had build the php package after removing the --without-pear option and it only installed a /usr/bin/pear command (nothing under /usr/share/pear). This led me to believe it was different than the .phar install. I guess we are back to square one then. Basically now it is just bootstrapping from php, or from php-pear package. Atleast with php we have a standard official tarball to compare against. So what is the plan with 1.5.0 then? Are you planning on including the web and/or gtk installer or are these optional? According to the web site they are not optional. I now understand your reasonging for the php-pear package and agree with you now (even though I think it sucks, but that is pear's fault not ours). This being said, there are _still_ major changes for the 1.5.0 package and these should be done before I do the review. I don't want to hear any B.S. about having to review what is currently in CVS. I also want to verify that the .phar does not bundle packages that already exist such as Net-UserAgent-Detect package which is now required for the web installer. I'm hoping this wont be a problem if the web installer is optional and not included in the .phar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:35:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:35:00 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061935.l16JZ05B022105@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225774: Merge Review: ftp Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Ruben Kerkhof has denied Roozbeh Pournader 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 ------- Additional Comments from Ruben Kerkhof This looks much better! A few details: * Remove the commented out BuildRoot, rpmlint complains about it * Preserve timestamps when installing files (use install -p or cp -p) From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:35:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:35:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225993] Merge Review: libc-client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061935.l16JZ91k022119@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libc-client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225993 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-06 14:35 EST ------- Joe, would you be willing to just make this (libc-client) go away and merge/co-maintain efforts with (Extras') uw-imap? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:35:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:35:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061935.l16JZ1bZ022113@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |mmaslano at redhat.com CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-06 14:34 EST ------- This looks much better! A few details: * Remove the commented out BuildRoot, rpmlint complains about it * Preserve timestamps when installing files (use install -p or cp -p) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:37:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:37:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226415] Merge Review: sgml-common In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061937.l16JbAkI022317@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sgml-common https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226415 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:37:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:37:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061937.l16JbsFs022378@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:39:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:39:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061939.l16Jdnnp022540@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk 2007-02-06 14:39 EST ------- OK some comments from me (numbering not related to numbering in above bugs): 1. Chris, I'm not sure what your proposal re: splitting the "PEAR class" from the "PEAR installer" is. Are you referring specifically to the file PEAR.php? If so, whilst it's true that: a) looking at CVS this hasn't changed for a while b) the PEAR and PEAR_Error classes contained within it are often required by other PEAR classes, I'm not sure that it makes any sense to split this one file off and do something separate with it. The distinction is not made upstream, so we shouldn't make it. (If you think there's justification upstream, please file a bug there). In any case, the PEAR installer requires the PEAR class, so we wouldn't gain anything useful that I can see. The PEAR command line installer is an intrinsic part of the PEAR package and uses most of the files from it; it is not a distinct "binary". 2) I disagree with your assertion that the PEAR installer is not updated frequently. Most of the "PEAR package" is related to the PEAR installer. For example, PEAR 1.5.0 fixes some critical bugs related to installing certain packages and the entire point of bug #173810 was to split this away from the PHP release cycle so that we can upgrade the PEAR installer in Fedora without having to wait for the next upstream PHP release. 3) I agree with the principle of splitting sub-packages out, particularly XML_RPC. However, this requires that we get a better bootstrapping method. I do not consider reverting to the PHP-release-lockin a better method. The best example of an alternative method which supports sub-packages without locking PEAR to PHP releases is over at PLD (similar method used by Mandriva): http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/SPECS/php-pear-PEAR.spec This was discussed last year. Joe objected (I can't find a reference; it may have been in an offline discussion) to this method on the basis that it requires too much intimate knowledge of PEAR. I think that point is a fair one, although personally I think the above (PLD) method may be the lesser of two evils, which has the bonus of eliminating the PHAR problem. However, since Joe has been the maintainer of the php-pear package I have deferred to his judgement. That said, I do think now is an appropriate time to revisit this issue. Re: the PHAR bootstrapping: CS> The bootstrapping method uses a source file which changes at every single CS> release, there is no way for someone to download an old version of the CS> bootstrap code. This does indeed suck but is a problem upstream which, if fixed, would negate this point. However my personal preferred bootstrap method would be the PLD one, which would also eliminate this problem, since that is based on the standard released PEAR tarball (i.e. PEAR-x.y.z.tgz) and therefore benefits from all the normal PEAR package release mechanism (archived versions, changelog, no special treatment required to keep it up to date) with the added bonuses that - it is readable with standard tools - it backports more easily to platforms < PHP 5.1 (for example RHEL4 - yes, I know RHEL4 probably isn't going to update PEAR, but there are people like me running EL derivatives with backported versions of key packages like PHP/PEAR etc.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:44:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:44:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061944.l16Ji8Ki022976@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rc040203 at freenet.de ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-06 14:44 EST ------- Hi Tim, I've assigned the ticket back to the original reviewer, that way he can see your comments (he is not on the CC list). Yes, I know, the process is clear as mudd at the moment, but have a look at http:// www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags Ralf, back to you :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:46:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:46:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226466] Merge Review: system-config-printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061946.l16JkSa7023170@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: system-config-printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226466 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:49:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:49:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061949.l16JnKZu023323@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk 2007-02-06 14:49 EST ------- Chris, can you cite a source for the web + GTK installer not being optional with PEAR 1.5.0? I have PEAR 1.5.0 installed (via "pear upgrade", not via RPM) on a machine here and I don't have GTK or web installers. You are perhaps being confused by the wording on http://pear.php.net/package/PEAR/download/1.5.0 which says: " Dependencies: ... - PEAR Package: PEAR_Frontend_Web - PEAR Package: PEAR_Frontend_Gtk " However, these are only *suggestions*. They are marked as "optional" in the package.xml file in the tarball and are not *required*. (The PEAR website should make this clearer; I will pursue that upstream) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:53:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061953.l16Jr34H023553@bugzilla.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: libgeotiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178162 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cbalint at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-06 14:53 EST ------- The whole thread is about getting grass in fedora extras ? Indeed i guess the dep tree libgeotiff->gdal->grass. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:54:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:54:15 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061954.l16JsFcT023738@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226503: Merge Review: tree Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Ruben Kerkhof has granted Tim Waugh 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 ------- Additional Comments from Ruben Kerkhof Thanks Tim, this looks good. One question though, why do you rm -rf tree in %build? I think rpmbuild does this by default. I don't see any blockers, so this package is approved. Please leave the ticket assigned to yourself. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:54:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:54:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061954.l16JsGTA023751@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ruben at rubenkerkhof.com |twaugh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-06 14:54 EST ------- Thanks Tim, this looks good. One question though, why do you rm -rf tree in %build? I think rpmbuild does this by default. I don't see any blockers, so this package is approved. Please leave the ticket assigned to yourself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:57:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:57:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061957.l16JvLuc024099@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-06 14:57 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18) > OK some comments from me (numbering not related to numbering in above bugs): > > 1. Chris, I'm not sure what your proposal re: splitting the "PEAR class" from > the "PEAR installer" is. Are you referring specifically to the file PEAR.php? If > so, whilst it's true that: As I mentioned in comment #17, I compiled php after removing the --without-pear option and it only added a /usr/bin/pear command, it did not add anything in /usr/share/pear This lead me to believe the pear installer from php was different than the pear class. It was a misunderstanding on my part and all my arguments for putting pear in the php spec file are no longer valid. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 19:59:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 14:59:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702061959.l16JxvQL024344@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-06 14:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19) > Chris, can you cite a source for the web + GTK installer not being optional with > PEAR 1.5.0? I have PEAR 1.5.0 installed (via "pear upgrade", not via RPM) on a > machine here and I don't have GTK or web installers. > > You are perhaps being confused by the wording on > http://pear.php.net/package/PEAR/download/1.5.0 which says: Yes, I was basing it off this wording, all other pear sites indication optional packages with "(optional)". Even PEAR itself says XML_RPM is optinal but does not mention this for the gtk or web installer parts. I'm glad to know that they are not actually required. This simplifies things tremendously. However due to the number of bugs being fixed and patches no longer required, I am still going to insist on an updated 1.5.0 package before I complete the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:10:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:10:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225824] Merge Review: gnome-mime-data In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062010.l16KAUEY025021@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-mime-data https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225824 ville.skytta at iki.fi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |227553 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:23:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:23:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 205955] Review Request: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062023.l16KN2Ui025960@bugzilla.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: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205955 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cbalint at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-06 15:22 EST ------- Why cant we disable geotiff ? is some tehnical reason ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:32:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:32:59 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062032.l16KWxwt026442@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226411: Merge Review: setserial Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review manuel wolfshant has denied Tim Waugh 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 ------- Additional Comments from manuel wolfshant Review for Release: 19.2.2 MUSTFIX: there are a couple of problems with the spec and the patches * the fhs patch has two errors +mandir = @bindir@ <-- this should be @mandir@ + $(STRIP) $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/setserial -< should not be at all, leads to empty debuginfo * the readme patch should include references to Fedora, not Red Hat * the spec does not include the preferred BUILDROOT, does not honor SMP flags,uses %makeinstall instead of make install Warning from rpmlint: Summary ends with dot I will attach the fixes for all of the above. Please use whatever you find useful and once corrected I will do the formal full review. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:33:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:33:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062033.l16KX0jB026450@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-06 15:32 EST ------- Review for Release: 19.2.2 MUSTFIX: there are a couple of problems with the spec and the patches * the fhs patch has two errors +mandir = @bindir@ <-- this should be @mandir@ + $(STRIP) $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/setserial -< should not be at all, leads to empty debuginfo * the readme patch should include references to Fedora, not Red Hat * the spec does not include the preferred BUILDROOT, does not honor SMP flags,uses %makeinstall instead of make install Warning from rpmlint: Summary ends with dot I will attach the fixes for all of the above. Please use whatever you find useful and once corrected I will do the formal full review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:33:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:33:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062033.l16KXxGN026482@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-06 15:33 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147516) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147516&action=view) fixes mandir and allows creating a debuginfo rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:34:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:34:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062034.l16KYiSj026535@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-06 15:34 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147517) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147517&action=view) replaces Red Hat with Fedora in instructions -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:37:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:37:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062037.l16Kb1Ko026744@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-06 15:37 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147518) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147518&action=view) fixed spec. Beware, release is the SAME as the one that was in CVS/devel at 20:15 GMT/Feb 6th 2007 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:48:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:48:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226254] Merge Review: perl-Devel-Symdump In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062048.l16Km6xE027537@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Devel-Symdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226254 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jpo at di.uminho.pt |rnorwood at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:50:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:50:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062050.l16Ko3H9027648@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro |twaugh at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:54:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:54:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062054.l16Ks7Mh027905@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-06 15:54 EST ------- Hi Ivana, Thanks for fixing all the above-mentioned issues. I don't see any further blockers, so this package is approved. Please leave the ticket assigned to yourself. Ruben -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:54:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:54:06 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062054.l16Ks6Gf027891@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226516: Merge Review: unzip Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Ruben Kerkhof has granted Ivana Varekova 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 ------- Additional Comments from Ruben Kerkhof Hi Ivana, Thanks for fixing all the above-mentioned issues. I don't see any further blockers, so this package is approved. Please leave the ticket assigned to yourself. Ruben From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 20:56:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:56:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226569] Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062056.l16KuTjq028019@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226569 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |sandmann at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 21:04:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062104.l16L4gs1028437@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(varekova at redhat.co | |m) ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-06 16:04 EST ------- Hi Ivana, One last thing, please preserve timestamps when installing files (install -p or cp -p) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 21:16:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:16:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] New: Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator 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=227570 Summary: Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mattdm at mattdm.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://mattdm.org/misc/fedoraextras/calc.spec SRPM URL: http://mattdm.org/misc/fedoraextras/calc-2.12.1.6-3.fc7.mattdm.src.rpm Description: Calc is an arbitrary precision C-like arithmetic system that is a calculator, an algorithm-prototyper, and a mathematical research tool. Calc comes with a rich set of built-in mathematical and programmatic functions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 21:19:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226271] Merge Review: perl-Net-IP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062119.l16LJlK8029424@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Net-IP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226271 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ville.skytta at iki.fi |rnorwood at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 21:28:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:28:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062128.l16LS73Q029986@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gcc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778 jakub at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jakub at redhat.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat.com 2007-02-06 16:28 EST ------- According to Jesse Keating that's just a suggestion, not a hard requirement. Encoding the major/minor version in the spec filename makes it easier to merge changes side by side between different gcc spec files, and more importantly, renaming it now would with the crappy CVS mean losing the CVS history for that file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 21:28:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:28:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062128.l16LSDau030000@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-06 16:28 EST ------- I had another look from the spec included in http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/ chkconfig-1.3.33.tar.gz , and it looks ok to me. Can you please upload your new tarball with the fully versioned Requires? Patrice is right, it is a MUST, althought the guidelines say "In the vast majority of cases". But I guess that's why it's called a guideline. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 21:37:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226478] Merge Review: tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062137.l16LbKpZ030523@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226478: Merge Review: tar Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Michael Schwendt has granted Michael Schwendt 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226478 ------- Additional Comments from Michael Schwendt * With the better scriptlet dependencies on /sbin/install-info in place, "Prereq: info" can be deleted: $ rpmlint tar-1.15.1-26.src.rpm W: tar prereq-use info * Other releases of tar may need "BuildRequires: gettext" for the message object files. This version doesn't. * The changes in cvs look fine. APPROVED * A side-note about the binary rpm: $ rpmlint tar-1.15.1-26.i386.rpm W: tar file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/tar.info-1.gz W: tar file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/tar.info.gz Indeed, in a single line in both files, J??rg Schilling's name is encoded in ISO 8859-1. That alone would be easy to fix with "iconv", and a created patch shows no accidental conversions. However, there are a few 0x0c carriage-return values in those files (and also in the texinfo input files), which cause these paragraphs, where the encoding is wrong, to be hidden when displaying the documentation with "info". I don't know whether the 0x0c are intentional or supposed to be 0x0a instead. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 21:37:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:37:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226478] Merge Review: tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062137.l16LbWPN030552@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226478 bugs.michael at gmx.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bugs.michael at gmx.net Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-06 16:37 EST ------- * With the better scriptlet dependencies on /sbin/install-info in place, "Prereq: info" can be deleted: $ rpmlint tar-1.15.1-26.src.rpm W: tar prereq-use info * Other releases of tar may need "BuildRequires: gettext" for the message object files. This version doesn't. * The changes in cvs look fine. APPROVED * A side-note about the binary rpm: $ rpmlint tar-1.15.1-26.i386.rpm W: tar file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/tar.info-1.gz W: tar file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/tar.info.gz Indeed, in a single line in both files, J?rg Schilling's name is encoded in ISO 8859-1. That alone would be easy to fix with "iconv", and a created patch shows no accidental conversions. However, there are a few 0x0c carriage-return values in those files (and also in the texinfo input files), which cause these paragraphs, where the encoding is wrong, to be hidden when displaying the documentation with "info". I don't know whether the 0x0c are intentional or supposed to be 0x0a instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 21:41:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 205955] Review Request: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062141.l16LfMC9030835@bugzilla.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: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205955 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|WONTFIX | ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-06 16:41 EST ------- ok. Tooked latest gdal-1.4.0, made a patch that add --with-geotiff=no option. It compiles fine, we can get rid of geotiff, till we have update on licence issue. Anyone interested for a respin on this gdal ? I am really looking forward to add grass http://grass.itc.it/ into -extras. ~cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 21:52:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 16:52:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 205955] Review Request: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062152.l16LqllO031685@bugzilla.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: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205955 ------- Additional Comments From devrim at commandprompt.com 2007-02-06 16:52 EST ------- Hi Cristian, http://www.mammothpostgresql.org/browser/mammothpostgresql/FC6/SRPMS/grass-6.0.2-1CMD.src.rpm?format=raw may be a good starting point for grass. I have packaged it for our product some monts ago. Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 22:04:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:04:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062204.l16M4Cr0032181@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk 2007-02-06 17:04 EST ------- In reply to comment #21) Yes, there is some weird stuff going on upstream - optional deps are not being marked as such. Upstream bug filed: http://pear.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=10040 If I can summarise where we are with this review, I think the following 4 issues are outstanding at this point: - $RPM_SOURCE_DIR vs %{SOURCEx}. Joe, I take your point about painting the bikesheds although the latter form is clearer to me too as it ties up the SourceX files in the list with what's actually going on in the spec - License tag. This is trivial stuff. There is a DRAFT proposal by Jason T regarding general cleanups here: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LicenseTag . Personally I don't think this is a blocker either way, at least in the absence of an approved guideline from the committee one way or another. - empty build section. This seems pointless to me but has been done to death on fe-list and my understanding of the conclusion is that empty build sections are stupid but necessary to avoid some kind of obscure bug - bootstrapping: I think this is the key technical issue this review should focus on. I think we're all agreed that splitting off subpackages is a good concept, to aid modularity and allow individual upgrades. Chris has offered to do any extra work required, so that's cool. However with the current (PHAR) based bootstrapping, the XML_RPC, Console_Getopt and Archive_Tar subpackages are pretty much required as part of PEAR. Switching to an alternative packaging methodology (e.g. PLD) is one possible solution to this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 22:20:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:20:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227579] New: Review Request: spr - Statistical pattern recognition 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=227579 Summary: Review Request: spr - Statistical pattern recognition Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: wart at kobold.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/spr.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/spr-05.00.01-1.src.rpm Description: The package implements a variety of tools for categorization of multivariate data such as boosted decision trees, bagging and random forest, bump hunting (PRIM), a multi-class learner and others. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 22:39:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:39:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062239.l16MdLZ3002593@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dan at danny.cz ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-06 17:39 EST ------- Assigning back to Dan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 22:54:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:54:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062254.l16MsCF9003442@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-06 17:54 EST ------- That is basically a summary of the review so far. However, I only got about 1/4 the way through the review checklist. I was unable to verify the upstream sources. This is another reason I wish to wait for 1.5.0 before finishing the review checklist. It will allow me to actually verify the upstream sources. I'm okay with the bootstrapping how it is done now, however, the PLD technique sounds interesting and should be investigated. I think it would be beneficial to have pear packages seperated, ie php-pear and php-pear-PEAR, php-pear-Archive-Tar, etc. That being said, I'm not going to block this review on implementing this feature. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 22:59:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:59:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227579] Review Request: spr - Statistical pattern recognition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062259.l16MxIjJ003788@bugzilla.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: spr - Statistical pattern recognition https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227579 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: spr - |Review Request: spr - |Statistical pattern |Statistical pattern |recognition |recognition ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-06 17:59 EST ------- rpmlint warns: W: spr-devel no-documentation The only documentation that might be part of the -devel subpackage is a few lines from the README file that's already included in the main package. I'm inclined to ignore this warning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 23:18:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:18:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062318.l16NI8K1005275@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-06 18:18 EST ------- Only if you insist on keeping the "INSTALL" file in %doc, keep it. Else drop it, as it is compile-from-source stuff that is irrelevant to RPM package end-users. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 23:20:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:20:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062320.l16NK63G005409@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk 2007-02-06 18:20 EST ------- I'm happy to spend the time getting the PLD method working (including splitting off Archive_Tar, XML_RPC and Console_Getopt) in Fedora style, but only if we can jointly agree in principle that that's a good thing, and I know Joe was against it before, which is why we need to discuss that. There is an interesting circular dependency there too (PEAR <-> Archive_Tar) which could be fun with mock. I can't readily see how php-pear and php-pear-PEAR could/would be separated, or what that would mean. Remember too (further to my earlier comments) that the "PEAR installer" isn't just the CLI frontend: it's also a PHP library backend for integration with other software - calls direct to the installer's back-end API *are* used by other packages (for example PEAR_Command_Packaging, or the not-yet-RPM-packaged s9y). That said, the current php-pear package does Provide php-pear(PEAR), so if such a thing did become meaningful in future, we already have the mechanism to do it in a reasonably BC way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 23:43:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:43:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226003] Merge Review: libexif In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062343.l16Nh4WM006138@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libexif https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226003 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-06 18:43 EST ------- > Can't give a working source url for sourceforge-hosted projects. It used to be easier a few months ago. The generic URL is http://dl.sf.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.* http://download.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.* and used to point to a round-robin DNS mirroring system. However, nowadays the system refuses to work and includes a host which doesn't respond. As a work-around, one can still use a prefix for a known mirror, e.g. http://umn.dl.sf.net/libexif/libexif-0.6.13.tar.bz2 http://us.dl.sf.net/libexif/libexif-0.6.13.tar.bz2 http://osdn.dl.sf.net/libexif/libexif-0.6.13.tar.bz2 http://mesh.dl.sf.net/libexif/libexif-0.6.13.tar.bz2 and so on. * A different release of this library may need "BuildRequires: gettext" or else would build without message object files. This version doesn't, but the configure script searches for gettext. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 23:46:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:46:46 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226003] Merge Review: libexif In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062346.l16Nkkp9006206@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226003: Merge Review: libexif Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Michael Schwendt has granted Michael Schwendt 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226003 ------- Additional Comments from Michael Schwendt APPROVED (Cannot verify whether %doc files in multi-lib installations can cause conflicts actually. In case such conflicts are common, perhaps the packaging committee should discuss that a bit.) From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 23:46:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:46:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226003] Merge Review: libexif In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062346.l16Nkv6k006218@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libexif https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226003 bugs.michael at gmx.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bugs.michael at gmx.net Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-06 18:46 EST ------- APPROVED (Cannot verify whether %doc files in multi-lib installations can cause conflicts actually. In case such conflicts are common, perhaps the packaging committee should discuss that a bit.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 6 23:50:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:50:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702062350.l16Not9D006369@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-06 18:50 EST ------- Ok! These files seem compiled but the package is considered as arch independant so in wonder if compiled python scripts are really compiled or maybe "pre-interpretted"...? [kwizart at kwizatz pythoncad]# file prefs.py prefs.py: ASCII English text [kwizart at kwizatz pythoncad]# file prefs.pyc prefs.pyc: python 2.4 byte-compiled [kwizart at kwizatz pythoncad]# file prefs.pyo prefs.pyo: python 2.4 byte-compiled SRPM: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/PythonCAD/PythonCAD-0.1.35-4.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SPEC: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/PythonCAD/PythonCAD.spec Description: PythonCAD scriptable CAD package Comment #5 is still waiting for an answear... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 00:01:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:01:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226003] Merge Review: libexif In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070001.l1701JCa006832@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libexif https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226003 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-06 19:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > http://dl.sf.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.* > http://download.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.* > > and used to point to a round-robin DNS mirroring system. However, > nowadays the system refuses to work and includes a host which > doesn't respond. Generic SF.net URLs like http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/... (note "downloads", not "download") have worked well for me lately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 00:02:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070002.l1702QOg006878@bugzilla.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: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 ------- Additional Comments From mhalcrow at us.ibm.com 2007-02-06 19:02 EST ------- Kevin Fenzi wrote: > 1. Your version scheme seems a bit odd. Is there any reason why you > do major integer releases every time? Now that 9 is out it's hard to > go to a more traditional 'work toward a stable 1.0', but it might be > worth considering just minor bumps for minor changes? I have considered using the dot notation in the version, but there is no notion of ``major'' and ``minor'' releases in our development and release cycle for the mount helper code. There will never be an ``experimental'' or ``beta'' branch of the code. The feature set is complete as-is for what is available in the kernel, and the current version is suitable for general release and use in production environments; adding extra characters into the version string would really provide no useful information. The mount helper is small and simple enough that I just can't justify maintaining multiple branches. The only other versioning scheme I might consider would be YYYYMMDD (which we did use for a while in the very early snapshot releases), but I prefer to minimize the number of characters used to express the version. In all cases, I recommend using the most recent release in any deployment of the mount helper code, regardless of its version number. > 3. The 2.6.19 kernel in fc6 updates has the ecryptfs module, so here > should be support for this in fc6 with the updated kernel at > least. Not sure how we are going to require that however. Wonder if > we can do a 'Requires: ecryptfs.ko'. Then there is the case where the user builds his kernel without module support. I think the approach should be the same as with packages that only support specific kernel features, such as CIFS. I looked over the SAMBA spec file, and nothing jumped out at me as a kernel module build dependency. I ran several tests eCryptfs on x86_64 with kernel-2.6.19-1.2895.fc6 and ext3 as the lower filesystem, and I did not get any errors on unmount. In response to comments #17 and #18, I have updated the SPEC file and have generated an updated source RPM. Except for an extra comment in the README, the source tarball remains unchanged. Source RPM: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-9-1.src.rpm SPEC file: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec Thanks, Mike -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 00:21:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070021.l170Lg3g007414@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-06 19:21 EST ------- Forgot to mention, I did not add %{dist} to the Release field. If possible, it should be added. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 02:11:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:11:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070211.l172B9Jp010782@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-06 21:11 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Ralf, back to you :-) I never reviewed this package, I just commented. BTW: - BuildRoot doesn't comply to Fedora standards -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 02:45:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:45:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070245.l172j0IK012314@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-06 21:44 EST ------- Uploaded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 03:35:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 22:35:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070335.l173ZZX6014873@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-06 22:35 EST ------- Sorry for the review on the old package. No idea how that got in there... I will ping mdomish and see if he can figure it out. In the mean time I have done a review of the real version... (7.3.2-6.fc7): OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (MIT) See below - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 4beead011dda24741a30ebe60de054b2 logwatch-7.3.2.tar.gz 4beead011dda24741a30ebe60de054b2 logwatch-7.3.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 0 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. 2 of the files seem to have a GPL license: scripts/services/courier and scripts/services/dpkg Can they really be distributed with the rest of the MIT licensed code? Perhaps upstream should be contacted about them... 2. Should use the approved one true buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. There is quite a bit of output from our pal rpmlint... rpmlint on logwatch-7.3.2-5.fc7.src.rpm W: logwatch no-%build-section Since this package is noarch, I think you can ignore this... If you like you could add a empty %build just for completeness. rpmlint on logwatch-7.3.2-5.fc7.noarch.rpm All of these look like they are perl modules, but they are executable, even though they don't have a #!/usr/bin/perl. They aren't meant to be called directly, so they should probibly all be mode 644? E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/tac_acc E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/modprobe E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/applybinddate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/mountd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/ipop3d E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/clamav E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/amavis E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logfiles/samba/applydate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/applystddate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/zz-disk_space E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/sudo E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/zz-fortune E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/http E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logfiles/yum/applydate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/onlyservice E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/ftpd-xferlog E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logfiles/xferlog/removeheaders E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/sshd2 E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/dhcpd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logfiles/emerge/applydate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/stunnel E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/kernel E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logfiles/up2date/removeheaders E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/audit E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/portsentry E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/syslogd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/yum E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/qmail E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/netscreen E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/dpkg E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/fail2ban E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/removeheaders E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/onlycontains E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/netopia E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/resolver E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/secure E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/automount E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/qmail-smtpd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/cisco E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/rt314 E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/sshd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/clamav-milter E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/cron E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logfiles/samba/removeheaders E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/hosthash E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/scsi E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/dovecot E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/dnssec E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/applyhttpdate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/pureftpd : logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/applyhttpdate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/pureftpd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/in.qpopper E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/zz-network E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/qmail-pop3ds E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/remove E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/imapd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/pam E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/sendmail-largeboxes E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logfiles/cron/applydate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/pix E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/samba E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/openvpn E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/xntpd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/pound E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/sendmail E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/applyeurodate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/vpopmail E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/pam_unix E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/applyvsftpddate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/expandrepeats E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/sonicwall E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/php E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/extreme-networks E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/identd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/emerge E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/exim E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/init E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/pluto E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/saslauthd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/afpd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/zz-sys E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/applytaidate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/slon E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/oidentd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/pam_pwdb E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/removeservice E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/hostlist E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/mailscanner E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/eximstats E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logfiles/xferlog/applydate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/smartd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/denyhosts E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/qmail-send E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/postfix E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/named E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/proftpd-messages E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logfiles/up2date/applydate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/shaperd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/raid E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/clam-update E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/up2date E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/ftpd-messages E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/onlyhost E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logfiles/autorpm/applydate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/qmail-pop3d E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/vsftpd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/autorpm E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/vsftpd E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/autorpm E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/windows E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/pop3 E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/courier E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/applyusdate E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/shared/multiservice E: logwatch script-without-shebang /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/arpwatch W: logwatch symlink-should-be-relative /etc/cron.daily/0logwatch /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl W: logwatch symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/logwatch /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl Should change that link to ../share/logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl? This makes the package more usefull in chroot type setups. E: logwatch wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/courier E: logwatch wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/pix Dos line endings? You can fix this with a call to sed... %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/courier E: logwatch zero-length /usr/share/logwatch/scripts/services/zz-fortune E: logwatch zero-length /usr/share/doc/logwatch-7.3.2/TODO zero-length files are not really very useful. Should be removed? Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 03:43:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 22:43:39 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070343.l173hdKV015397@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225878: Merge Review: gzip Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has granted Roozbeh Pournader 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi Excellent. Everything looks good from here... this package is APPROVED. I think the plan is to keep it there open and assigned to you until it's determined how to import all the approved packages into the new CVS. Thanks for your prompt response and fixes... From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 03:43:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 22:43:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070343.l173hpWH015419@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |varekova at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-06 22:43 EST ------- Excellent. Everything looks good from here... this package is APPROVED. I think the plan is to keep it there open and assigned to you until it's determined how to import all the approved packages into the new CVS. Thanks for your prompt response and fixes... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 03:59:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 22:59:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070359.l173xaLS016196@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-06 22:59 EST ------- In reply to comment #11: Was that a comment here? Or did you find some other reference to it? In reply to comment #12: yes, assign back to me to recheck, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ?. One item I see remaining: %makeinstall is used. See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002 for why this is bad. Does a 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' work instead? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 04:00:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070400.l1740K7U016273@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-06 23:00 EST ------- Another attempt: It should work now. spec url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-7.6.4-5.spec srpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.8.src.rpm debug url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-debuginfo-0.7.6_4-3.8.i386.rpm rpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.8.i386.rpm It's a good idea to test new RPM's on a clean machine, but I have only got one pc. For now I have done a make uninstall in the BUILD dir. and installed the rpm. ps. But I will study the making of the spec file when I have the time for it. The macro's used by makerpm somehow mess things up. And there are some other vage things. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 04:01:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:01:54 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070401.l1741sk0016383@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225609: Merge Review: bash Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has denied Tim Waugh 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi Sorry, forgot to flip the assigned and flags back... Change it back to assigned to me, and fedora-review flag to ? when you reply to comment #13. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 04:02:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:02:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070402.l17426c2016411@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |twaugh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-06 23:01 EST ------- Sorry, forgot to flip the assigned and flags back... Change it back to assigned to me, and fedora-review flag to ? when you reply to comment #13. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 04:21:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:21:31 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226660] Merge Review: xterm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070421.l174LVeH017565@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226660: Merge Review: xterm Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226660 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi I'd be happy to review this package, look for a full review in a bit. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 04:21:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:21:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226660] Merge Review: xterm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070421.l174LW0C017574@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xterm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226660 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-06 23:21 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this package, look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 04:42:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:42:28 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226660] Merge Review: xterm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070442.l174gSH3019328@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226660: Merge Review: xterm Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has denied Kevin Fenzi 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226660 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (MIT) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: bf5bb77496ddf95df32b8e752a6cabb0 xterm-223.tgz bf5bb77496ddf95df32b8e752a6cabb0 xterm-223.tgz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. See below - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 2 outstanding bugs, not package related - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Would it make sense to make a .desktop file for xterm? It is a GUI app... 2. rpmlint sez: rpmlint on ./xterm-debuginfo-223-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlint on ./xterm-223-2.fc7.src.rpm W: xterm summary-not-capitalized xterm terminal emulator for the X Window System Might make that a cap X (minor, non blocker) W: xterm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 41) Might pick tabs or spaces and use only one or the other. rpmlint on ./xterm-223-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: xterm summary-not-capitalized xterm terminal emulator for the X Window System E: xterm non-standard-gid /usr/bin/xterm utempter E: xterm setgid-binary /usr/bin/xterm utempter 02755 E: xterm non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/xterm 02755 Ignoreable. This package has to have a sgid utempter binary to allow it to show login sessions. Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 04:42:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:42:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226660] Merge Review: xterm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070442.l174gdt6019358@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xterm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226660 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |mlichvar at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-06 23:42 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (MIT) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: bf5bb77496ddf95df32b8e752a6cabb0 xterm-223.tgz bf5bb77496ddf95df32b8e752a6cabb0 xterm-223.tgz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. See below - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 2 outstanding bugs, not package related - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Would it make sense to make a .desktop file for xterm? It is a GUI app... 2. rpmlint sez: rpmlint on ./xterm-debuginfo-223-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlint on ./xterm-223-2.fc7.src.rpm W: xterm summary-not-capitalized xterm terminal emulator for the X Window System Might make that a cap X (minor, non blocker) W: xterm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 41) Might pick tabs or spaces and use only one or the other. rpmlint on ./xterm-223-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: xterm summary-not-capitalized xterm terminal emulator for the X Window System E: xterm non-standard-gid /usr/bin/xterm utempter E: xterm setgid-binary /usr/bin/xterm utempter 02755 E: xterm non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/xterm 02755 Ignoreable. This package has to have a sgid utempter binary to allow it to show login sessions. Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 05:26:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 00:26:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 205955] Review Request: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070526.l175QscH022738@bugzilla.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: gdal - A translator library for raster geospatial data formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205955 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 00:26 EST ------- Hello, Cristian and Devrim: Currently another person submitted another GDAL review request, so I close this bug as DUPLICATE. Please attach a patch on the bug if you have a patch, thanks. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 222042 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 05:27:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 00:27:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070527.l175RQRA022790@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |joost.soeterbroek at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 00:27 EST ------- *** Bug 205955 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 05:28:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 00:28:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070528.l175SjXL022894@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(niles at rickniles.co | |m) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 00:28 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 05:30:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 00:30:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070530.l175UNs1023009@bugzilla.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: libgeotiff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178162 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 00:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #22) > The whole thread is about getting grass in fedora extras ? > Indeed i guess the dep tree libgeotiff->gdal->grass. Yes. If you are interested, please comment on bug 222042 and bug 222039 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 06:28:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 01:28:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] New: Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems 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=227631 Summary: Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ikent at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://members.plug.org.au/~raven/autofs.spec SRPM URL: http://members.plug.org.au/~raven/autofs-5.0.1-0.rc3.15.src.rpm Description: autofs is a daemon which automatically mounts filesystems when you use them, and unmounts them later when you are not using them. This can include network filesystems, CD-ROMs, floppies, and so forth. This is my first Fedora package so I need a sponsor. Anyone, please help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 06:32:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 01:32:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070632.l176WDWd025373@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ikent at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 07:22:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 02:22:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070722.l177MXLP027099@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 07:24:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 02:24:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222964] Review Request: dayplanner - A simple time management program. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070724.l177Oj7Q027213@bugzilla.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: dayplanner - A simple time management program. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222964 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(johnny.d at freesurf. | |ch) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 02:24 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 07:28:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 02:28:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070728.l177Ss0O027423@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-07 02:28 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > > > Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version} > > > > There is an automatic dependency on the library sonames already, btw. > > Indeed, but I think it is better if an update of the main package > with, say > yum update bzip2 Please try this with today's bzip2 update! => It doesn't work with the current deps. => If this is really wanted (which I disagree up on) then the dep must be Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version}-%{release} Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version} is non-functional > triggers an update of the -libs if there is a newer version. To me this would be an unnecessary restrictive requirement. The automatic dep on libbzip2.so.1 will make sure a sufficently compatible lib will be pulled in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:03:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:03:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070903.l17932r3032387@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-07 04:02 EST ------- Fixed in unzip-5.52-4.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:03:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:03:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070903.l1793aQs032621@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(varekova at redhat.co| |m) | ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-07 04:03 EST ------- Fixed in zip-2.31-3.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:05:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:05:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070905.l17959p7000470@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:05:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:05:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070905.l1795MdE000510@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:07:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:07:06 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070907.l17976ot000710@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225678: Merge Review: dcraw Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Dan Horak has granted Nils Philippsen 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 ------- Additional Comments from Dan Horak Both problems were fixed, so package is APPROVED From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:07:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:07:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070907.l17978De000733@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dan at danny.cz |nphilipp at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-07 04:07 EST ------- Both problems were fixed, so package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:24:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:24:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070924.l179OjEC002261@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|alexl at redhat.com |dan at danny.cz Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-07 04:24 EST ------- Did not you forget to fix the Requires in the python subpackage from comment #4? I agree with Michael on this. It looks like the new sources have a new feature - almost all files have the exec bit set. Please, unset it at least from *.c and *.h files that are packaged into the -debug subpackage. find . -name \*.[ch] | xargs chmod -x -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:44:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:44:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070944.l179ii5d003487@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-07 04:44 EST ------- If you want to check upgrade candidate too, you can find it at: http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/rpms/tar-1.16.1-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:52:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:52:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070952.l179qddE004038@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-07 04:52 EST ------- Thanks for your excellent review - I just discuss some points with logwatch upstream - so it takes some time to fix all problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:57:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:57:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070957.l179vtrZ004345@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-07 04:57 EST ------- A previous tarball shipped the tree binary(!) along with the source. Current version doesn't do that so I'll remove the rm. Thanks! Can I set the resolution to 'RAWHIDE' or something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 09:59:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 04:59:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702070959.l179xt9v004472@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-07 04:59 EST ------- Tagged and built as 2.2-28.fc7. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:05:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:05:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071005.l17A5IU3004791@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-07 05:05 EST ------- Tagged and built as 1.2-28.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:09:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:09:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225993] Merge Review: libc-client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071009.l17A9LRn005094@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libc-client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225993 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-07 05:09 EST ------- Yes definitely. It looks like the Extras uw-imap is a strict superset of libc-client already so once The Merge has happened we can just switch php to use that instead. And this package can go away! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:15:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:15:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071015.l17AF3WP005444@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-07 05:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > The automatic dep on libbzip2.so.1 will make sure a sufficently compatible lib > will be pulled in. Imagine that a user get to know that there is a serious flaw in bzip2. If the issue is really in the lib, upon doing yum update bzip2 the lib won't be updated, I think it is unfortunate. It shouldn't only require a compatible lib, but the implementation associated with the command, in my opinion, since they come from the same source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:25:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:25:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227291] Review Request: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071025.l17AP7lW006235@bugzilla.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: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227291 ------- Additional Comments From gregmhogan at gmail.com 2007-02-07 05:25 EST ------- http://s3.amazonaws.com/greg/ptunnel-0.61-3/ptunnel.spec http://s3.amazonaws.com/greg/ptunnel-0.61-3/ptunnel-0.61-3.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Feb 07 2007 Greg Hogan - 0.61-3 - libpcap moved development files into separate package in fc6, so BuildRequires uses libpcap for <= fc5, and libpcap-devel >= fc6. - Improved %files section. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:27:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:27:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071027.l17ARYHR006432@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|twaugh at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-07 05:27 EST ------- >In reply to comment #11: >Was that a comment here? Or did you find some other reference to it? Yes, comment #9, last paragraph ("...for calling install-info for upgrade time..."). DESTDIR appears to work, so I've made that change as well. Tagged and built as 3.2-8.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:32:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:32:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071032.l17AWINN006770@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-07 05:32 EST ------- I can agree, that a printable version is useful, but then it should be packaged due its size as a subpackage or its own package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:36:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:36:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071036.l17Aak43007176@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-07 05:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > I can agree, that a printable version is useful, but then it should be packaged > due its size as a subpackage or its own package. Agreed. I think that a -doc sub-package would be nice. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:42:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:42:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071042.l17Agg06007964@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|twaugh at redhat.com |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-07 05:42 EST ------- Thanks. Tagged and built as 2.17-20.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:43:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225284] Merge Review: aspell-sr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071043.l17Ahxu1008175@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-sr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225284 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-07 05:43 EST ------- Fixed in aspell-sr-0.02-2.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:43:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:43:59 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225284] Merge Review: aspell-sr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071043.l17Ahxjk008170@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225284: Merge Review: aspell-sr Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Ivana Varekova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225284 ------- Additional Comments from Ivana Varekova Fixed in aspell-sr-0.02-2.fc7 From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:45:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071045.l17AjMCK008391@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-07 05:45 EST ------- Ok, I made another changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:48:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:48:47 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071048.l17AmlNK008839@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225757: Merge Review: flac Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Dan Horak has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:48:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:48:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071048.l17AmwYN008864@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dan at danny.cz Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 10:56:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 05:56:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071056.l17AuhEC009861@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:10:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:10:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] New: Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) 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=227646 Summary: Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cbalint at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.1-1.src.rpm Description: GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) is a Geographic Information System (GIS) used for geospatial data management and analysis, image processing, graphics/maps production, spatial modeling, and visualization. GRASS is currently used in academic and commercial settings around the world, as well as by many governmental agencies and environmental consulting companies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:17:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:17:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071117.l17BH4Dm011552@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-07 06:17 EST ------- rpmlint warnings: W: grass non-standard-dir-in-usr grass-6.2.1 W: grass-devel no-dependency-on grass first: is normal behaviour, since grass has a separate eviroment folder where plugins and scripts are kept. second: we can have only grass-lib,grass-devel e.g if we dont want the grass enviroment only some other tools on top of grass-lib like e.g mapserver. bz#222042 and bz#222039 block this to include. We need olso gdal to be included. If there will be no update on geotiff licence issue i can help disbale it and include a geotiff-less gdal in fedora. Already workaround to disable geotiff from gdal, but i wait for officials. I am looking forward for a review, the package required some hacks since grass is bit unusual unix software, lets see how can improve those workarounds in the .spec, but i guess unless we got upstream some stuff we will have to carry workarounds in this .spec ~cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:19:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071119.l17BJsea011626@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cbalint at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-07 06:19 EST ------- look into bz#227646. I pend grass package over this gdal. If we still have no progress on this gdal, we can pack a geotiff-less one. I will try help out with this but only once Tom Callaway looks over this first. ~cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:32:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:32:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071132.l17BWkw5012237@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-07 06:32 EST ------- The public accessible cvs server is not sync-ed yet. I'll do the review tonight. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:52:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:52:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071152.l17BqGLt012952@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 ------- Additional Comments From pknirsch at redhat.com 2007-02-07 06:52 EST ------- 1: Fixed Buildroot, add smp_flags. Also added the %{?dist} to the Release 2: Included doc files 3.1: Checked, all 3 should really be noreplace, fixed. 3.2: acpid can't be run as anything else but root, so there is no point in it being executable or readable by everyone. 3.3: acpid isn't a network/remote service, so enabling it by default is safe. Also even if a machine doesn't have ACPI (nowadays kinda rare, but still), making it default will be the best choice the the majority of systems. 3.4: Why is the premission for an initscript strange with 0755, even in a srpm? But fixed the PreReqs to use the correct modern style. 3.5: Added -q for %setup 4.1: Typical /var/log/FOO entry. The package itself doesn't package a real file, but "supports" one being there. See other /var/log logfile supporting packages. 4.2: Fixed. Also fixed all the /etc occurences with %{_sysconfdir} and /usr/share with %{_datadir} 4.3: Fixed. Thanks for the review, Read ya, Phil -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:52:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:52:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071152.l17BqO12012963@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:52:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:52:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071152.l17BqHnb012958@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:52:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:52:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071152.l17BqSvi013001@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:54:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:54:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071154.l17BsGCm013103@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 karsten at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:56:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:56:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071156.l17BuRwW013200@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp BugsThisDependsOn| |222039, 222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 06:56 EST ------- Well, I (and the other reviewers) want to clean up the package which this package depends on first, libgeotiff, gdal, etc... By the way, are you in need of sponsor? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:56:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071156.l17Bumql013240@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |227646 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:57:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:57:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071157.l17BvAKY013275@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |227646 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 11:58:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:58:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225770] Merge Review: freetype In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071158.l17BwqLR013351@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: freetype https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225770 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-07 06:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > So we mark it as GPL. Do you think anything will happen ever?! I don't get what is the question, but marking it as GPL will remove the blocker on review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 12:03:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:03:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071203.l17C3l6s013653@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-07 07:03 EST ------- Yes :-) Ok, lets do it :-) I pinged Tom, hope he will respond, otherwise lets disable geotiff from gdal. If till tomorrow will no answear i will help you disaple and pack gdal in the *right* way. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 12:07:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:07:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227291] Review Request: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071207.l17C75i9013776@bugzilla.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: ptunnel - Reliably tunnel TCP connections over ICMP packets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227291 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-07 07:07 EST ------- In an ideal world you could use %{?dist} to discriminate among distributions. And using it would allow build to succeed on other distros like RHEL3/4/5, too. With Fedora only in mind, your solution is fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 12:09:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:09:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071209.l17C9e00013888@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-07 07:09 EST ------- Oops, I'm sorry, ignore comment #2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 12:10:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:10:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226478] Merge Review: tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071210.l17CAaUq013964@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226478 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-07 07:10 EST ------- If you want to check upgrade candidate too, you can find it at: http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/rpms/tar-1.16.1-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 12:13:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:13:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071213.l17CDNH7014175@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 12:28:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:28:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071228.l17CS2pM015375@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-07 07:27 EST ------- If you want, you can set it to closed rawhide. We're only planning on looking at the fedora-review flag. If that's a +, the package is approved. Thanks, Ruben -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 12:32:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:32:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226503] Merge Review: tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071232.l17CWXa6015699@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tree https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226503 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 12:33:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:33:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226514] Merge Review: unix2dos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071233.l17CX1rS015745@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unix2dos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226514 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 12:43:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:43:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071243.l17Chfl8016678@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-07 07:43 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > rpmlint warnings: > W: grass non-standard-dir-in-usr grass-6.2.1 > W: grass-devel no-dependency-on grass > > first: is normal behaviour, since grass has a separate eviroment folder > where plugins and scripts are kept. MUSTFIX: This is non-acceptable. You must move these files elsewhere e.g. %{_libdir}/grass- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 12:45:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:45:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220381] Review Request: compat-flex - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071245.l17Cjb47016929@bugzilla.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: compat-flex - Legacy version of flex, a tool for creating scanners https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220381 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-07 07:45 EST ------- Thanks Ralf. I have no other extras packages, modulo the core->extras migrations. -- 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 Wed Feb 7 12:59:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 07:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222964] Review Request: dayplanner - A simple time management program. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071259.l17Cx6OP018007@bugzilla.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: dayplanner - A simple time management program. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222964 johnny.d at freesurf.ch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(johnny.d at freesurf.| |ch) | ------- Additional Comments From johnny.d at freesurf.ch 2007-02-07 07:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > ping? Pong! Ack Sorry. I'm very thankfull for all your notes. I looked at Guidlines and tried to do it right the first time but i fergot a few things as you pointed out. I didn't answer cause i was busy doing the changes. I didn't have that much time the past few days. But i'm soon going to update with and updated spec file and the holiday parser as a seperate rpm. Again thanks for taking the time and effort to look through my crude spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:20:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:20:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071320.l17DKf33019165@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 08:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #36) > (In reply to comment #34) > > NOTIFICATION: > > > > Currently gdome2 is orphaned, which means that no one > > maintains gdome2, and if ntop requires gdome2 a new > > maintainer is needed. > > If ntop is worked into acceptable shape, > I can pick up ownership of gdome2 as well. Well, currently gdome2 is orphaned and removed from FC/E-devel tree and I cannot rebuild your srpm because I am using FC-devel. So: * If you want to use gdome2, please take over gdome ownership first. You are already in cvsextras (as I am sponsoring you) and you can do this. For this, you should post to fedora-extras list as "I want to take over gdome2". Please check: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages * Or, if this package works without gdome2, you may disable gdome2 support for a moment (in this case please upload a new srpm/spec). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:31:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:31:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225256] Merge Review: arts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071331.l17DVd9P019718@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: arts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225256 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|DUPLICATE | CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:31 EST ------- Nevermind the dup, on retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:33:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:33:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227221] Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071333.l17DX4Dq019822@bugzilla.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: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227221 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:33 EST ------- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 225256 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:33:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:33:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225256] Merge Review: arts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071333.l17DX5Ri019826@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: arts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225256 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:33 EST ------- *** Bug 227221 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:33:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:33:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227222] Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071333.l17DXGJQ019846@bugzilla.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: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 Bug 227222 depends on bug 227221, which changed state. Bug 227221 Summary: Review Request: arts - aRts (analog realtime synthesizer) - the KDE sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227221 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |DUPLICATE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:33:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071333.l17DXOuK019859@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|DUPLICATE | ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:33 EST ------- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:33:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:33:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225961] Merge Review: kdebase In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071333.l17DXZc8019883@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdebase https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225961 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|DUPLICATE | CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:33 EST ------- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:33:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:33:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225965] Merge Review: kdepim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071333.l17DXlFF019915@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdepim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225965 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|DUPLICATE | CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:33 EST ------- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:34:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:34:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227222] Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071334.l17DYM1x019948@bugzilla.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: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:34 EST ------- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 225963 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:34:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:34:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071334.l17DYN8q019952@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:34 EST ------- *** Bug 227222 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:34:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:34:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227223] Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071334.l17DYO8V019968@bugzilla.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: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227223 Bug 227223 depends on bug 227222, which changed state. Bug 227222 Summary: Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |DUPLICATE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:34:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:34:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227227] Review Request: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071334.l17DYaaG019981@bugzilla.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: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227227 Bug 227227 depends on bug 227222, which changed state. Bug 227222 Summary: Review Request: kdelibs - K Desktop Environment - Libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227222 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |DUPLICATE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:34:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:34:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227223] Review Request: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071334.l17DYua6020002@bugzilla.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: kdebase - K Desktop Environment - core files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227223 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:34 EST ------- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 225961 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:34:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225961] Merge Review: kdebase In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071334.l17DYvVf020006@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdebase https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225961 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:34 EST ------- *** Bug 227223 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:35:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:35:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227227] Review Request: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071335.l17DZPrX020039@bugzilla.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: kdepim - PIM (Personal Information Manager) for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227227 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:35 EST ------- On retrospect, makes much more sense to review Core package as-is, and discuss mods and co-maintainership after. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 225965 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:35:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:35:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225965] Merge Review: kdepim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071335.l17DZP4v020043@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdepim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225965 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:35 EST ------- *** Bug 227227 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 13:36:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:36:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227241] Review Request: kde-settings - Config files for kde In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071336.l17DaL6o020080@bugzilla.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: kde-settings - Config files for kde https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227241 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 08:36 EST ------- Will be updating soon, to use kiosktool-style prefs (like how kubuntu works). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:04:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:04:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225993] Merge Review: libc-client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071404.l17E45R1022765@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libc-client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225993 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 09:04 EST ------- You ok with simply closing this review request then? (if so, I'll leave that for you to do). When you have time, feel free to review the existing uw-imap, and we can discuss anything that catches your eye there. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and add you as co-maintainer to uw-imap. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:13:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:13:52 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071413.l17EDqX4023850@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225794: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader has denied Tim Waugh 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader (In reply to comment #2) > 6.0 is an older release (see the timestamp). Worst than that, they are exactly the same thing. The bits are exactly the same! I would still recommend using 6.0, so people won't think we are not using the latest version in Fedora. More random notes: * Your new URL is still not good. The tarball is not provided from the sourceforge servers, and not any real info either. It's a dead project. It just says go to GNU for more info. Use either http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/ghostscript/ or http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/. The second is preferred, as its more user oriented. (BLOCKER) * The URL in the Source line does not work anymore either. Use http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/ghostscript/gnu-gs-fonts-std-%{version}.tar.gz * You should change the "Requires: fontconfig" line to different lines for requirements after installation and uninstallation. Currently, one can ask rpm/yum to remove both fontconfig and ghostscript-fonts and fontconfig may get removed before ghostscript-fonts, making the post uninstallation scripts fail. A similar scenario can happen with installation. Also, you need to have mkfontscale, mkfontdir, and chkfontpath during some of these. (BLOCKER) Suggested lines: Requires: fontconfig Requires(post): /usr/bin/mkfontscale /usr/bin/mkfontdir Requires(post): /usr/sbin/chkfontpath Requires(post): fontconfig Requires(postun): /usr/sbin/chkfontpath Requires(postun): fontconfig * Copy the files during the %install section using the '-p' option of cp (or use install -p). * Have an empty %build section. * Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share in the %files section. Also consider adding a "/" at the end to show that we are actually including a directory and files in there. * There is nothing in the source tarball that says the license of the files is GPL, as the license field of the spec file says. They may as well be proprietary software, as far as a random observer can tell. Since contacting upstream for including a license may not be trivial, the spec file should at least document why we have made sure this is licensed under the GPL. (BLOCKER) * The summary ends with a dot. It shouldn't. * I don't think the use of parenthesized "(TM)" is really necessary in the Summary line. The Fedora EULA already says that all trademarks are owned by their respective owners. * The part of the description that says you'll need to install this for ghostscript to work is not that important to be worth a mention. That is simply a Requires line in the ghostscript package. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:13:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071413.l17EDrid023862@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |twaugh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-07 09:13 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > 6.0 is an older release (see the timestamp). Worst than that, they are exactly the same thing. The bits are exactly the same! I would still recommend using 6.0, so people won't think we are not using the latest version in Fedora. More random notes: * Your new URL is still not good. The tarball is not provided from the sourceforge servers, and not any real info either. It's a dead project. It just says go to GNU for more info. Use either http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/ghostscript/ or http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/. The second is preferred, as its more user oriented. (BLOCKER) * The URL in the Source line does not work anymore either. Use http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/ghostscript/gnu-gs-fonts-std-%{version}.tar.gz * You should change the "Requires: fontconfig" line to different lines for requirements after installation and uninstallation. Currently, one can ask rpm/yum to remove both fontconfig and ghostscript-fonts and fontconfig may get removed before ghostscript-fonts, making the post uninstallation scripts fail. A similar scenario can happen with installation. Also, you need to have mkfontscale, mkfontdir, and chkfontpath during some of these. (BLOCKER) Suggested lines: Requires: fontconfig Requires(post): /usr/bin/mkfontscale /usr/bin/mkfontdir Requires(post): /usr/sbin/chkfontpath Requires(post): fontconfig Requires(postun): /usr/sbin/chkfontpath Requires(postun): fontconfig * Copy the files during the %install section using the '-p' option of cp (or use install -p). * Have an empty %build section. * Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share in the %files section. Also consider adding a "/" at the end to show that we are actually including a directory and files in there. * There is nothing in the source tarball that says the license of the files is GPL, as the license field of the spec file says. They may as well be proprietary software, as far as a random observer can tell. Since contacting upstream for including a license may not be trivial, the spec file should at least document why we have made sure this is licensed under the GPL. (BLOCKER) * The summary ends with a dot. It shouldn't. * I don't think the use of parenthesized "(TM)" is really necessary in the Summary line. The Fedora EULA already says that all trademarks are owned by their respective owners. * The part of the description that says you'll need to install this for ghostscript to work is not that important to be worth a mention. That is simply a Requires line in the ghostscript package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:32:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:32:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] 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=227669 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: andreac81 at hotmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.cs.unipr.it/~cimino/ppl.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cs.unipr.it/~cimino/ppl-0.9-1.src.rpm Description: The Parma Polyhedra Library (PPL) is a modern C++ library providing numerical abstractions especially targeted at applications in the field of analysis and verification of complex systems. The PPL can handle all the convex polyhedra that can be defined as the intersection of a finite number of (open or closed) hyperspaces, each described by an equality or inequality (strict or non-strict) with rational coefficients. The PPL also handles restricted classes of polyhedra that offer interesting complexity/precision tradeoffs. The library also supports finite powersets of (any kind of) polyhedra and linear programming problems solved with an exact-arithmetic version of the simplex algorithm. We are willing tho improve the .spec file to meet the Fedora standards. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:39:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:39:51 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226357] Merge Review: rdate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071439.l17Edp6h025623@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226357: Merge Review: rdate Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader has denied Roozbeh Pournader 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226357 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader Random first notes: * Remove the dot at the end of Summary line. * It seems that there is no upstream. No URL is given, and the Source address doesn't work either. So I can't check that this is the same as the upstream source. (BLOCKER) * Change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Use the option %{?_smp_mflags} for make. * Don't use %makeinstall, if possible. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#MakeInstall * Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) * Consider using %{?dist} in Release tag. * The binary file 'rdate' is installed with permission 555 in the Makefile. It should be 755. This can be fixed either by patching the Makefile or by explicitly changing the permission in the %install or %files section. (BLOCKER) From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:39:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226357] Merge Review: rdate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071439.l17EdqgC025647@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: rdate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226357 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pknirsch at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-07 09:39 EST ------- Random first notes: * Remove the dot at the end of Summary line. * It seems that there is no upstream. No URL is given, and the Source address doesn't work either. So I can't check that this is the same as the upstream source. (BLOCKER) * Change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Use the option %{?_smp_mflags} for make. * Don't use %makeinstall, if possible. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#MakeInstall * Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) * Consider using %{?dist} in Release tag. * The binary file 'rdate' is installed with permission 555 in the Makefile. It should be 755. This can be fixed either by patching the Makefile or by explicitly changing the permission in the %install or %files section. (BLOCKER) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:45:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:45:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071445.l17EjIKS026121@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-07 09:45 EST ------- Right, its far much better. splitted out whole GISBASE env in %{_libdir}/grass-. olso online internal docs splitted in /usr/shar/docs/grass-6.2.1/docs/html/* +fixed related paths in script-enviroment for this split. +tested functionality of grass this way olso, its fine. rpmlint report no bugs. See updated src.rpm and .spec fron the URL provided by me. other things ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:50:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:50:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071450.l17EoooV026353@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 09:50 EST ------- Well, * gettext translation file - One gettext po file is found. po/PythonCAD.es.po This seems to be ES (Spanish) translation and this should be installed. This file has to be compiled by msgfmt in gettext rpm. And %find_lang should be used for this file. * BuildRequires: - By the way, does this srpm need "python-tools" for BuildRequires? * Normally setup.py (i.e. distutils module) requires python-devel (from FC-devel), not python-tools * My system does not have python-tools installed, however I can rebuild this package. * Timestamps - Please keeps timestamp on the original source (i.e. download the source by "wget -N" for example). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:55:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071455.l17Et6Pj026531@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 09:55 EST ------- Ah... Please increase the release number every time you do some modification for spec/srpm. This is a must item do avoid confusion. Anyway, as I said above, I want to deal with gdal... before this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:58:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:58:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] New: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers 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=227674 Summary: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/methane.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/methane-1.4.7-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Super Methane Brothers is a platform game converted from the Amiga by its original author. It is very similar to the Taito game "Bubble Bobble". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 14:59:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:59:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071459.l17ExT9J026853@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743 ------- Additional Comments From mitr at redhat.com 2007-02-07 09:59 EST ------- Thanks! * Use of buildroot is not consistant Changed to use "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" everywhere. * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros /usr/share/man replaced by %{_mandir} * The package should contain the text of the license It does, in /usr/share/expect-*/README: | I hereby place this software in the public domain. NIST and I would | appreciate credit if this program or parts of it are used. * Duplicate BuildRequires: tcl-devel (by tk-devel), libX11-devel (by tk-devel), autoconf (by automake) Because expect explicitly refers to tcl-devel and autoconf it IMHO should BuildRequire it explicitly; this is unrelated to the question whether e.g. automake depends on autoconf. BuildRequires: libX11-devel removed, expect doesn't directly refer to libX11. * Please use {?dist} in the Release tag I'd rather not; as long as each Fedora release uses a different NEVR, the dist tag is IMHO just useless clutter. * Can you use make DESTDIR instead of make INSTALLROOT? No, Makefile.in doesn't support this aspect of GNU coding standards and the variable is called INSTALL_ROOT. * Replace /usr/share/man with %{_docdir} everywhere ... with %{_mandir}, done. * Are you willing to consider building with --disable-static. You're not packaging static libraries, and this saves some build time. expect doesn't support --disable-static. * If one of the packages is a gui application, a .desktop file should be installed expectk is a programming language interpreter, I don't think it can be considered a GUI application (try running it). E: expect script-without-shebang /usr/lib/expect5.43/pkgIndex.tcl * Fixed by making the file unexecutable E: expect wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/expect5.43/cat-buffers "expect" E: expect non-executable-script /usr/lib/expect5.43/cat-buffers 0644 * Both Fixed by removing the file altogether E: expect invalid-soname /usr/lib/libexpect5.43.so libexpect5.43.so I'll try to clean this up tomorrow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:01:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:01:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071501.l17F1Kfs027145@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-07 10:01 EST ------- Ok, next time i will ++. Till gdal, can review as much as possible this ? Its pretty complicated to pack this beast, it has an unfrendly enviroment that has to be converted to FHS and fedora standards. And lots of minor nits may still be inside .... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:13:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:13:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227676] New: Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth 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=227676 Summary: Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/scorchwentbonkers.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/scorchwentbonkers-1.1-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: As the name suggests, Scorch Went Bonkers is a remake of the old PC classic. However, many things were changed and the type of fun delivered by the game is different. Where Scorched Earth puts emphasis on tactics and careful calculations, SWB requires quick thinking, perfect timing and only one finger for controlling your tank. The game is real-time instead of turn based. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:16:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:16:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227676] Review Request: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071516.l17FGbkJ028563@bugzilla.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: scorchwentbonkers - Realtime remake of Scorched Earth https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227676 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |227198 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-07 10:16 EST ------- Notice that this needs the still to be reviewed jpgalleg lib, whose review is bug 227198 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:16:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:16:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227198] Review Request: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071516.l17FGcbC028571@bugzilla.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: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227198 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |227676 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:16:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:16:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071516.l17FGoGR028604@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 10:16 EST ------- Well, two issue. * License: - This must be resolved in a proper way. * /usr/bin/seom-backup - is a shell script and this contains ---------------------------------------------------- if ! which seom-x264 &> /dev/null; then echo "You need to install seom-x264" exit -1 fi ---------------------------------------------------- .. however, what is seom-x264? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:24:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:24:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071524.l17FOCma029268@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-07 10:24 EST ------- > Requires: grass-libs Unless mispackaged, there is an automatic dependency on library sonames already. Query the binary rpm file with "rpm -qpR". Avoid explicit dependencies on package names wherever possible. > Provides: grass = %{version}-%{release} It's automatic already and hence duplicate. Every package "Provides: %name = %version-%release" automatically. > %package libs > Requires: python tk > Requires: zlib mesa-libGL mesa-libGLw xorg-x11-util-macros freetype lesstif > Requires: proj geos blas lapack fftw2 gdal => 1.4.0 > Requires: unixODBC mysql postgresql-libs sqlite > Provides: grass-libs = %{version}-%{release} Same here. The "Provides" is not needed. Plus, you have lots of suspicious and questionable dependencies on library package names in there, which should be automatic already. [-devel package] > Requires: grass-libs => 6.2.1 Does that really work? Is "=>" recognised as ">="? Anyway, ought to be "Requires: grass-libs = %{version}-%{release}" If you don't require a specific %version-%release, your package users will run into funny problems whenever grass-devel and grass-libs are out-of-sync. >%build > >CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" >CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" Not needed. The %configure macro sets and exports these two already. > gzip -9 ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_prefix}/grass-%{version}/man/man1/*.1 Manual pages included in %doc are compressed automatically. > %post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun devel -p /sbin/ldconfig Useless. %defattr in sub-packages ought to come _before_ %doc file sections. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:29:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:29:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071529.l17FT4DY029606@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE CC| |chris.stone at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-07 10:29 EST ------- Imported and build, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:29:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:29:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071529.l17FTOGC029622@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-07 10:29 EST ------- > %{_libdir}/libgrass_*.a Inclusion of static libs must be justified. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:44:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:44:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071544.l17FiYRe031000@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 rpm at greysector.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rpm at greysector.net ------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net 2007-02-07 10:44 EST ------- "yum update" alone works. "yum update bzip2*" works, too. We don't add artificial Requires simply because you think people may be unaware that bzip2 comes in two parts. If they are unaware, they probably use pup or some other graphical interface which will show both packages scheduled for update. Following your line of reasoning, we'd need to add similar Requires: for all packages where -libs subpackage exists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:50:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:50:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071550.l17FoobA031347@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-07 10:50 EST ------- seom-x264 is a utility to convert seom captures to h.264-formatted video: http://forum.beryl-project.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1020&start=0 However, I'm fairly certain the build-dep, x264, isn't shippable in Fedora. On that assumption, should we drop the script from the build, or maybe just drop it in %docdir non-executable so users can figure it out themselves? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:51:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:51:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071551.l17FpGDw031374@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-07 10:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > "yum update" alone works. "yum update bzip2*" works, too. We don't add > artificial Requires simply because you think people may be unaware that bzip2 > comes in two parts. If they are unaware, they probably use pup or some other They are not so artificial, since both packages come from the same tarball. Would they have been installed with ./configure && make && make install they would have been together. > graphical interface which will show both packages scheduled for update. > Following your line of reasoning, we'd need to add similar Requires: for all > packages where -libs subpackage exists. Indeed. But I don't make that a blocker, it is just a suggestion (maybe I wasn't clear about that) if the contributor don't like, no problem with me. In that case, the unuseful Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version} should go away, though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 15:54:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:54:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071554.l17FsHur031635@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 10:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > seom-x264 is a utility to convert seom captures to h.264-formatted video: > > http://forum.beryl-project.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1020&start=0 > > However, I'm fairly certain the build-dep, x264, isn't shippable in Fedora. On > that assumption, should we drop the script from the build, or maybe just drop it > in %docdir non-executable so users can figure it out themselves? > I think this should be dropped. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:04:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:04:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071604.l17G4f15032600@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-07 11:04 EST ------- Hi Miloslav My comments inline: >> * The package should contain the text of the license > It does, in /usr/share/expect-*/README: I missed that one, thanks for pointing it out. >> * Duplicate BuildRequires: tcl-devel (by tk-devel), libX11-devel >> (by tk-devel), autoconf (by automake) > Because expect explicitly refers to tcl-devel and autoconf it IMHO should > BuildRequire it explicitly; this is unrelated to the question whether e.g. > automake depends on autoconf. Agreed. > BuildRequires: libX11-devel removed, expect doesn't directly refer to libX11. Thanks. >> * Please use {?dist} in the Release tag > I'd rather not; as long as each Fedora release uses a different NEVR, the > dist tag is IMHO just useless clutter. There are a number of pros and cons for the disttag. One pro is that it makes it easier to do mass rebuilds (for example for FC7-test1). You're not required to change it, of course, but please reconsider it. Some more pros (and cons) at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DisttagsForRawHide >> * Can you use make DESTDIR instead of make INSTALLROOT? > No, Makefile.in doesn't support this aspect of GNU coding standards and > the variable is called INSTALL_ROOT. Ok. Can you let me know when you've updated the spec in cvs? I'll have another look then. Thanks, Ruben -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:04:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:04:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071604.l17G4ke3032612@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-07 11:04 EST ------- updated. Not sure about Request in -libs, investigate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:15:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:15:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071615.l17GFD7L000973@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 11:15 EST ------- Ah.. X crashed when I was writing the review result... Well, * Desktop files - Icon does not appear on desktop menu. ------------------------------------------------ Icon=deluge-256.png ------------------------------------------------ ... should be deluge.png * Python related dependency - notify-python ------------------------------------------------ 33 try: 34 import pynotify 35 self.pynotify = pynotify # We must save this, because as a plugin, our globals will die ------------------------------------------------ notify-python is available on FC6/devel (not on FC5) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:17:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:17:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071617.l17GHiZA001183@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-07 11:17 EST ------- So, to summarize this discussion, the requester has to - Change the BuildRoot - Remove the static libraries or provide reasoning for why they're included. - Drop README.COMPILATION.PROBLEMS - Add api docs to the -devel subpackage - Preserve timestamps when installing files - Check if the -devel package needs to Require the main package, and if so, change it to Requires: bzip2 = %{version}-%{release} - Remove the Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version} Ivana, can you do that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:25:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:25:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071625.l17GPsJh002047@bugzilla.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: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 ------- Additional Comments From mattdm at mattdm.org 2007-02-07 11:25 EST ------- Hold on a bit -- there's a new version out, and a few issues I've fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:27:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:27:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071627.l17GR1x8002124@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-07 11:26 EST ------- Fixed. Thanks for the review. The only remaining rpmlint warning is about the mixed tab/spaces. For some reason rpmlint considers four spaces a tab, but two spaces are not. I consider this a bogus warning, as the iconv calls are better readable without tabs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:32:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:32:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071632.l17GWQpL002714@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-07 11:32 EST ------- Additionally URL and source seems wrong to me. They seem to be http://www.bzip.org/ and http://www.bzip.org/1.0.4/bzip2-1.0.4.tar.gz A minor suggestion is to remove the -f in rm invocation, to have it fail if the .o aren't generated: rm *.o -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:44:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:44:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071644.l17GiJJt003675@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-07 11:44 EST ------- The PLD PEAR stuff is half hidden in obfuscated RPM macros shipped in the rpm package (!?), it took me a while to try and read through what they actually do again. It is a lot of code to achieve what we do in one PHP invocation running the .phar. They have to fake up a PEAR environment and configuration, unpack the tgz, do a fake --nodeps install, then copy that environment out to the buildroot. I can't see how they get a lot of stuff right: - they create .filemap via "touch" so presumably the files list in the PEAR database omits the PEAR package itself - they don't relocate any of the installed PEAR database files - the pear.conf they install is AFAICT the fake one; we use the fully-populated one created by PEAR itself The whole thing looks overcomplicated and fragile. Bootstrapping from the .phar is simple and low-maintenance; it's the only method for bootstrapping PEAR actually supported by upstream to boot (whether it comes via go-pear.org or with the PHP tarball). The only thing which sucks about using the .phar is upstream's lack of release archive, which really makes no difference to the packaging. So my choice definitely remains with using the .phar. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:45:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:45:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225679] Merge Review: dejagnu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071645.l17GjLpt003854@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dejagnu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225679 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-07 11:45 EST ------- Spec renamed, commited into cvs, not built. $ rpmlint noarch/dejagnu-1.4.4-6.noarch.rpm W: dejagnu devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/dejagnu/testglue.c W: dejagnu devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/dejagnu.h W: dejagnu devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/dejagnu/stub-loader.c These are ok, dejagnu is actually a development package. These files are compiled during the course of dejagnu's runtime. Other than that, rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:49:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:49:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071649.l17GnIoD004120@bugzilla.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: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 ------- Additional Comments From mattdm at mattdm.org 2007-02-07 11:49 EST ------- Okay, updated. New: Spec URL: http://mattdm.org/misc/fedoraextras/calc.spec SRPM URL: http://mattdm.org/misc/fedoraextras/calc-2.12.1.8-1.fc7.mattdm.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 16:59:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:59:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071659.l17Gx1fD004891@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pknirsch at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-07 11:58 EST ------- Thanks for looking at those items... I am reassigning this back to me. I will hopefully be able to take a look later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:15:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:15:30 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226351] Merge Review: qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071715.l17HFUao005966@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226351: Merge Review: qt Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Rex Dieter has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226351 From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:15:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:15:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226351] Merge Review: qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071715.l17HFfc2005984@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226351 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rdieter at math.unl.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:27:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:27:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071727.l17HRSAY007148@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-07 12:27 EST ------- fixed in cpio-2.6-24.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:29:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:29:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071729.l17HT6ju007262@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:31:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:31:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071731.l17HV8LT007659@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|twaugh at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-07 12:31 EST ------- Tagged and built as 5.50-16.fc7. I changed the License tag to say 'Distributable'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:34:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:34:55 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226351] Merge Review: qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071734.l17HYtOo007924@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226351: Merge Review: qt Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Rex Dieter has denied Rex Dieter 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226351 ------- Additional Comments from Rex Dieter Guidelines-wise, looks good, only a few relatively small SHOULD (optional) items to consider: * icons. SHOULD try to follow icon-spec here, and put items in/under %_datadir/icons/hicolor/ somewhere instead of using %_datadir/pixmaps * .desktop files: using namespace/vendor of qt-* *and* using '3' appended to .desktop file names is redundant. Consider removing the '3' from the .desktop file names. * consider changing qtdir from %{_libdir}/qt-3.3 to just %_libdir/qt3. It would then be consistent with qt4 packaging. This is a big change that may induce pain in other packages that currently hard-code the old location, so it may not be worth it. * -devel-docs subpkg SHOULD: 1. should simply be -doc (corrolary: and have no dependency on -devel) 2. assistant should be included here. * SHOULD avoid some of the multilib ickiness, and necessity to use /etc/ld.so.conf.d/qt*, by simply using ./configure -libdir %{_libdir} ie, putting qt's libs into %_libdir directly. qt4 has been using these latter 2 items with success. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:34:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:34:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226351] Merge Review: qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071734.l17HYuNc007932@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226351 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag|fedora-review? |needinfo?(than at redhat.com), | |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 12:34 EST ------- Guidelines-wise, looks good, only a few relatively small SHOULD (optional) items to consider: * icons. SHOULD try to follow icon-spec here, and put items in/under %_datadir/icons/hicolor/ somewhere instead of using %_datadir/pixmaps * .desktop files: using namespace/vendor of qt-* *and* using '3' appended to .desktop file names is redundant. Consider removing the '3' from the .desktop file names. * consider changing qtdir from %{_libdir}/qt-3.3 to just %_libdir/qt3. It would then be consistent with qt4 packaging. This is a big change that may induce pain in other packages that currently hard-code the old location, so it may not be worth it. * -devel-docs subpkg SHOULD: 1. should simply be -doc (corrolary: and have no dependency on -devel) 2. assistant should be included here. * SHOULD avoid some of the multilib ickiness, and necessity to use /etc/ld.so.conf.d/qt*, by simply using ./configure -libdir %{_libdir} ie, putting qt's libs into %_libdir directly. qt4 has been using these latter 2 items with success. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:35:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:35:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225722] Merge Review: ElectricFence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071735.l17HZcd3007959@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ElectricFence https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225722 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-07 12:35 EST ------- Tidied up version commited, not built. $ rpmlint i386/ElectricFence-2.2.2-21.i386.rpm W: ElectricFence devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libefence.a W: ElectricFence devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libefence.so These are ok, ElectricFence is actually a development package. Other than that, rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:39:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:39:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226351] Merge Review: qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071739.l17HdWjU008189@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226351 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rdieter at math.unl.edu |than at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:42:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:42:04 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071742.l17Hg4eQ008365@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225963: Merge Review: kdelibs Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Rex Dieter has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:42:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071742.l17Hg4Bg008373@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rdieter at math.unl.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:45:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:45:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071745.l17HjZCr008615@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-07 12:45 EST ------- Well, * BuildRequires - Mockbuild fails on FC7 i386 (needs desktop-file-utils) * Documentation - Please add other "README" files * Timestamps - keep timestamps on image files and etc, i.e. use "cp -p" or "install -p" * Desktop file entry ----------------------------------------------------- --add-category X-Fedora \ ----------------------------------------------------- is deprecated and should be removed. * Scriptlets ----------------------------------------------------- if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then ----------------------------------------------------- is redundant because execution of non-existing file simply exits with 127 and is ignored by || : -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:48:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:48:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071748.l17Hm1hQ008682@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-07 12:47 EST ------- Regarding the XML/HTML files opening in other modes: I think it depends what kind of file you choose. DocBook XML files open in nxml-mode for example. http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/nxml-mode/emacs-nxml-mode.spec http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/nxml-mode/emacs-nxml-mode-0.20041004.1-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:48:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:48:06 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071748.l17Hm6HO008688@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226411: Merge Review: setserial Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review manuel wolfshant has granted Tim Waugh 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 ------- Additional Comments from manuel wolfshant Formal review for release 2.17-20.fc7: - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license is GPL (hence OK), matches source; upstream does not include the license, so it isn't included in the package either - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, last available version, sha1sum 68824494a0b5700f7e999564a59358bf34f79eb1 setserial-2.17.tar.gz - package bilds in mock for devel/x86_64 - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files and directories that it creates, does take not take ownership of foreign files/directories - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no static, .pc, .la files - no need for .desktop file - rpmlint is silent on the source; there is one warning for the generated binary: W: setserial spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/setserial-2.17/rc.serial It can be ignored, this is meant as an initscript which ( if needed ) must be installed in /etc/init.d anyway SHOULD - builds cleanly in mock - runs as advertised TODO - upstream should be bugged to included the license in the supplied tar.gz APPROVED From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:48:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:48:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225789] Merge Review: genromfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071748.l17HmKA5008714@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: genromfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225789 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-07 12:48 EST ------- Tidied up version commited, not built. rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:48:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:48:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071748.l17Hm7Ap008697@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn|163778 |163779 Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-07 12:48 EST ------- Formal review for release 2.17-20.fc7: - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license is GPL (hence OK), matches source; upstream does not include the license, so it isn't included in the package either - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, last available version, sha1sum 68824494a0b5700f7e999564a59358bf34f79eb1 setserial-2.17.tar.gz - package bilds in mock for devel/x86_64 - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files and directories that it creates, does take not take ownership of foreign files/directories - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no static, .pc, .la files - no need for .desktop file - rpmlint is silent on the source; there is one warning for the generated binary: W: setserial spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/setserial-2.17/rc.serial It can be ignored, this is meant as an initscript which ( if needed ) must be installed in /etc/init.d anyway SHOULD - builds cleanly in mock - runs as advertised TODO - upstream should be bugged to included the license in the supplied tar.gz APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:53:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:53:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071753.l17HrKSH009018@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro |twaugh at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:53:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:53:12 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071753.l17HrCKE008991@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225963: Merge Review: kdelibs Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Rex Dieter has denied Rex Dieter 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 ------- Additional Comments from Rex Dieter On first glance (otherwise, looking good): * SHOULD omit Requires: cups ... Obsoletes: %{name}2 Obsoletes: kdesupport Obsoletes: kdoc that's all ancient history, no need, imo, to carry the baggage anymore. * -devel pkg SHOULD Requires: qt-devel unversioned here is ok, main pkg already includes Requires: qt >= EVR omit legacy crud: Obsoletes: kdesupport-devel * SHOULD omit Requires(pre,post): desktop-file-utils per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets it is no longer required (FC-5+) From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:53:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:53:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071753.l17HrNLR009025@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|rdieter at math.unl.edu |than at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |needinfo?(rdieter at math.unl.e | |du), fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-07 12:53 EST ------- On first glance (otherwise, looking good): * SHOULD omit Requires: cups ... Obsoletes: %{name}2 Obsoletes: kdesupport Obsoletes: kdoc that's all ancient history, no need, imo, to carry the baggage anymore. * -devel pkg SHOULD Requires: qt-devel unversioned here is ok, main pkg already includes Requires: qt >= EVR omit legacy crud: Obsoletes: kdesupport-devel * SHOULD omit Requires(pre,post): desktop-file-utils per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets it is no longer required (FC-5+) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 17:53:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:53:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071753.l17HrosA009065@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(rdieter at math.unl.e|needinfo?(than at redhat.com) |du) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 18:08:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:08:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226109] Merge Review: ltrace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071808.l17I8NRD009831@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ltrace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226109 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-07 13:08 EST ------- Tidied up version commited, not built. rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 18:14:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:14:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226120] Merge Review: make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071814.l17IE0LE010179@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: make https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226120 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-07 13:13 EST ------- Tidied up version commited, not built. rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 18:33:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:33:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225652] Merge Review: comps-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071833.l17IXdmt011500@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: comps-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225652 katzj at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|katzj at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From katzj at redhat.com 2007-02-07 13:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > W: comps-extras no-url-tag > > Yep, there's not one. > Use http://www.fedoraproject.org/ then. It's used by more than Fedora, though, so that's not appropriate either. And no cvsweb (since that would be a good answer) > > There isn't an upstream tarball location. The upstream _are_ the packages > > that are built. > If there's a source control system with public anonymous access, please point to > that. Checking the included tarball against the upstream tarballs are a MUST > item in the review list. (BLOCKER) Added a comment pointing to the upstream CVS. There aren't tarballs, so that's the best there can be. > > > * GPL may not be a very appropriate license for a set of PNG images > > It's not normal, but it's fine. > Then please include a copy of the GPL license in the source tarball (and , and > add a note somewhere in the tarball or the comment field of the image files > themselves that the files are licensed under the GPL. Presently, the only > mention of the license is the spec file, which means that one cannot confirm > that it is used correctly. > If there is no mention of free software license somewhere, one should assume > that it's proprietary, at least according to the US law. (BLOCKER) There is a mention somewhere -- the spec file is in the upstream source and says GPL. I've dropped COPYING into the CVS repo for the next time there's a pull done. > > Given that there's nothing actually done, this doesn't actually make a > > difference > Agreed. But then please remove the line "make" from the %build section. The > section is allowed to be empty. I don't care enough to keep arguing why this doesn't matter ;) Removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 18:34:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:34:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226411] Merge Review: setserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071834.l17IYCFO011554@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: setserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226411 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 18:46:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:46:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] New: Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited 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=227717 Summary: Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dakingun at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/gimmie/gimmie.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/gimmie/gimmie-0.2.3-1.src.rpm Description: Gimmie is an elegant way to think about how you use your desktop computer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 18:55:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227719] New: Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer 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=227719 Summary: Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dakingun at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/gpixpod/gpixpod.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/gpixpod/gpixpod-0.6.2-1.src.rpm Description: GPixPod let you manage your collection of photos uploading them to your iPod, organizing them in photo albums. Instead of the iTunes synchronization approach, GPixPod let you choose your manual operations on your photos and photo albums, such as adding/deleting individual photos and photo albums, and renaming photo albums -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 19:02:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:02:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226182] Merge Review: nasm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071902.l17J2eBC013310@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226182 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-07 14:02 EST ------- Tidied up version commited, not built. rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 19:19:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:19:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226404] Merge Review: sed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071919.l17JJENZ014285@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226404 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-07 14:19 EST ------- Tidied up version commited, not built. rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 19:24:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:24:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226660] Merge Review: xterm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071924.l17JOGHG014659@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xterm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226660 mlichvar at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mlichvar at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mlichvar at redhat.com 2007-02-07 14:24 EST ------- Ok, should be fixed in xterm-223-3.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 19:40:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071940.l17Jewx1015733@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-07 14:40 EST ------- Tested with this docbook XML file, it doesn't open in nxml-mode here: http://docbook.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/docbook/slides/doc/slides.xml I think this issue is something that needs to be resolved for real so that it is clear under which situations nxml-mode vs xml/xhtml modes are used before the package can be published. If no better ways are found, removing nxml-mode's associations completely by default and providing commented out examples somewhere how to make it override xml/xhtml for all types nxml supports would be much better than the current uncertainty. .1%{?dist} needs to move from the version tag to release. If upgradeability from earlier versions of this package somewhere is a concern, plain 20041004 without the 0. prefix or 0.20041004.2 would provide that after the move. Could you comment on the dependency on emacs vs emacs-common? Currently, nxml-mode can't be installed with only emacs-nox available (no emacs), even though it'd probably work just fine. I'm leaning towards emacs-common being a better alternative, but won't treat this as a blocker. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 19:47:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226509] Merge Review: tzdata In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071947.l17JlhnE016267@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tzdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226509 ------- Additional Comments From pmachata at redhat.com 2007-02-07 14:47 EST ------- Tidied up version commited, not built. rpmlint is silent, for both source and binary rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 19:56:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:56:18 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071956.l17JuIsX016866@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225207: Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Matt Domsch has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 19:56:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:56:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702071956.l17JuSpD016883@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 Matt_Domsch at dell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|Matt_Domsch at dell.com |michael_e_brown at dell.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 20:37:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:37:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225522] Review Request: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072037.l17KbtHn019354@bugzilla.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: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225522 limb at jcomserv.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-07 15:37 EST ------- Adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR. I'm not a sponsor, so I can't approve, but adding this blocker will alert the sponsors to it's presence. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 20:50:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:50:25 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072050.l17KoPbb020253@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225641: Merge Review: chkconfig Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Ruben Kerkhof has granted Ruben Kerkhof 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ------- Additional Comments from Ruben Kerkhof Thanks. I don't see any blockers, so this package is approved. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 20:50:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:50:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225641] Merge Review: chkconfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072050.l17KoRl8020265@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: chkconfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225641 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-07 15:50 EST ------- Thanks. I don't see any blockers, so this package is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:00:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:00:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072100.l17L0E5O021028@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-07 16:00 EST ------- I don't think the file BUGS is very relevant and MANUAL is a duplicate of the manpage your already installing. Please consider removing those. I don't see any further blockers, so this package is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:00:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:00:13 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072100.l17L0DX4021016@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226669: Merge Review: zip Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Ruben Kerkhof has granted Ivana Varekova 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 ------- Additional Comments from Ruben Kerkhof I don't think the file BUGS is very relevant and MANUAL is a duplicate of the manpage your already installing. Please consider removing those. I don't see any further blockers, so this package is approved. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:02:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:02:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072102.l17L2lbA021197@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 limb at jcomserv.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |limb at jcomserv.net ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-07 16:02 EST ------- I got a strange error on my first build attempt that I've not been able to replicate. All subsequent attempts have been fine. That aside. . . [limb at zanoni SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/i386/methane-1.4.7-1.i386.rpm E: methane non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/methane 02755 A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. E: methane zero-length /var/games/methanescores rpmlint -i on the SRPM was clean. Meets package naming guidelines. Spec name is good. Source md5 and SRPM tarball md5 match. To Be Continued. . . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:15:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:15:19 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072115.l17LFJr1022011@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225838: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola has denied Deji Akingunola 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola Good: * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Sources, Group and License tags properly in place * Locales handled correctly * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Package builds OK in Mock. NEEDSWORK: According to the packaging guildlines on rpm scriplets, * The post and postun Requires on desktop-file-utils is not necessary * call to scrollkeeper-update in post section is inclomplete, should be called like; "scrollkeeper-update -q -o %{_datadir}/omf/%{name} || :" * I believe the "add-category X-Redhat-Base" is no longer necessary for the desktop file install. A couple of other minor nitpicks; * You can pass the "--disable-schemas-install" option to the configure script, without needing to set and unset the GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL env. * There are a number of rpmlint warnings/errors which I believe can be ignored; [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-system-monitor-2.17.6-1.fc7.src.rpm W: gnome-system-monitor unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gtop [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-system-monitor-2.17.6-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-system-monitor obsolete-not-provided gtop W: gnome-system-monitor no-documentation W: gnome-system-monitor non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-system-monitor.schemas From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:15:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:15:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072115.l17LFKU6022019@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dakingun at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review-, needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-07 16:15 EST ------- Good: * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Sources, Group and License tags properly in place * Locales handled correctly * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Package builds OK in Mock. NEEDSWORK: According to the packaging guildlines on rpm scriplets, * The post and postun Requires on desktop-file-utils is not necessary * call to scrollkeeper-update in post section is inclomplete, should be called like; "scrollkeeper-update -q -o %{_datadir}/omf/%{name} || :" * I believe the "add-category X-Redhat-Base" is no longer necessary for the desktop file install. A couple of other minor nitpicks; * You can pass the "--disable-schemas-install" option to the configure script, without needing to set and unset the GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL env. * There are a number of rpmlint warnings/errors which I believe can be ignored; [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-system-monitor-2.17.6-1.fc7.src.rpm W: gnome-system-monitor unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gtop [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-system-monitor-2.17.6-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-system-monitor obsolete-not-provided gtop W: gnome-system-monitor no-documentation W: gnome-system-monitor non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-system-monitor.schemas -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:16:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:16:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072116.l17LGqhI022102@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-07 16:16 EST ------- Initial Owner: varekova at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:20:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:20:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072120.l17LKJ3H022325@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:21:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:21:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072121.l17LLcXf022407@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-07 16:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > To me it is a blocker if it isn't done, since it goes against the > FHS, and sane packaging practices. It was said on the list that the files are arch-dependent, so may comment is irrelevant. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:23:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:23:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072123.l17LNaeF022527@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-07 16:23 EST ------- Looks good. One thing though, could you preserve the timestamps when installing files (with install -p or cp -p). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:41:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:41:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072141.l17LfpkR023593@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From kzak at redhat.com 2007-02-07 16:41 EST ------- Thanks for your enthusiasm. I'm going to fix/improve the package in next week(s). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:42:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:42:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226108] Merge Review: lsof In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072142.l17Lglp3023668@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lsof https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226108 ------- Additional Comments From kzak at redhat.com 2007-02-07 16:42 EST ------- Thanks for your enthusiasm. I'm going to fix/improve the package in next week(s). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:43:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:43:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072143.l17Lh2LC023698@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From alcapcom at gmail.com 2007-02-07 16:43 EST ------- SPEC: http://download.tuxfamily.org/fedoraxgl/SPECS/xorg-x11-server-Xgl.spec SRPM: http://download.tuxfamily.org/fedoraxgl/SRPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xgl-0-0.2.20070102git.fc6.src.rpm - The keyboard layout is now correctly mapped! - Add of a quick faq and a small but useful script to workaround some Xgl limitations. (like play OpenGL based games) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 21:47:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226530] Merge Review: vlock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072147.l17Ll4U2023946@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vlock https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226530 ------- Additional Comments From kzak at redhat.com 2007-02-07 16:47 EST ------- Thanks for your enthusiasm. I'm going to fix/improve the package in next week(s). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 22:13:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:13:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072213.l17MDDQn025918@bugzilla.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: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-07 17:13 EST ------- Updated packages based on the recently released sear 0.6.3: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-0.6.3-1.src.rpm I haven't tried running the new package yet, but it does compile fine with guichan 0.5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 22:39:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:39:19 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072239.l17MdJxs027068@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225822: Merge Review: gnome-media Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola has denied Deji Akingunola 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola A couple of issues for gnome-media; NEEDSWORK: * rpmlint (on the binary package, the -devel subpackage, and the srpm) produces a number of warnings/errors. Most of it can possibly be ignored, but I think the rpath issue need to be fixed >> [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libglade/2.0/libgnome-media-profiles.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-audio-profiles-properties ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-cd ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/cddb-track-editor ['/usr/lib64'] W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-devel-2.17.90-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: gnome-media-devel no-documentation [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-1.fc7.src.rpm E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnome-media non-utf8-spec-file gnome-media.spec W: gnome-media unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnome W: gnome-media macro-in-%changelog _datadir W: gnome-media mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 22) * scrollkeeper-update is not being properly called in the post and postun sections according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect= ScriptletSnippets#head-a4ea5e1946bc113d19d24b4f5bfb543c579e5fc8 * "--add-category X-Redhat-Base" option to desktop-file-install is no longer necesary Not so importantly, the "disable-schemas-install" option can be pass to the configure script instead of setting and unsetting GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTAL env. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 22:39:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:39:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072239.l17MdKsA027076@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dakingun at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review-, needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-07 17:39 EST ------- A couple of issues for gnome-media; NEEDSWORK: * rpmlint (on the binary package, the -devel subpackage, and the srpm) produces a number of warnings/errors. Most of it can possibly be ignored, but I think the rpath issue need to be fixed >> [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libglade/2.0/libgnome-media-profiles.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-audio-profiles-properties ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-cd ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/cddb-track-editor ['/usr/lib64'] W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-devel-2.17.90-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: gnome-media-devel no-documentation [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-1.fc7.src.rpm E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnome-media non-utf8-spec-file gnome-media.spec W: gnome-media unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnome W: gnome-media macro-in-%changelog _datadir W: gnome-media mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 22) * scrollkeeper-update is not being properly called in the post and postun sections according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-a4ea5e1946bc113d19d24b4f5bfb543c579e5fc8 * "--add-category X-Redhat-Base" option to desktop-file-install is no longer necesary Not so importantly, the "disable-schemas-install" option can be pass to the configure script instead of setting and unsetting GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTAL env. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 22:41:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:41:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226351] Merge Review: qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072241.l17MfsRD027232@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226351 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-07 17:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > * -devel-docs subpkg SHOULD: > 1. should simply be -doc (corrolary: and have no dependency on -devel) > 2. assistant should be included here. > I think this would break designer Help->Manual menu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 22:42:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:42:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072242.l17MgO9G027262@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-07 17:42 EST ------- The packaging guildelines on removing rpath is here; http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28rpath%29#head-7cea8c7aa96400a4687e843156354476434ff883 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 22:54:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:54:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072254.l17MssfY028026@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-07 17:54 EST ------- Proposed spec file and SRPM are here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 23:14:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:14:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072314.l17NEq9m028936@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-07 18:14 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147611) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147611&action=view) Spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 23:16:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:16:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072316.l17NGrGk029080@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-07 18:16 EST ------- SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/jakarta-commons-el-1.0-7jpp.1.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 7 23:24:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 18:24:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702072324.l17NOGp6029593@bugzilla.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: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 ------- Additional Comments From sg02r at ecs.soton.ac.uk 2007-02-07 18:24 EST ------- Please note there is also an updated WFUT package. Both the sear and wfut updates will allow the media to be installed as an rpm and further updates downloaded into a user's home directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 00:40:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 19:40:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080040.l180eKV1002715@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 01:11:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:11:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080111.l181BPi7005485@bugzilla.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: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-07 20:11 EST ------- New wfut packages are being built now. I'll start working on a sear-media package as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 01:34:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:34:48 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080134.l181Ym6O007857@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225609: Merge Review: bash Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has granted Tim Waugh 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi Excellent. I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Thanks for the great responsiveness and fixes... I think the plan is to leave these review bugs around assigned to you and in the fedora-review + state until it's determined how to merge them into CVS. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 01:34:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 20:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080134.l181YxXx007884@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |twaugh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-07 20:34 EST ------- Excellent. I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Thanks for the great responsiveness and fixes... I think the plan is to leave these review bugs around assigned to you and in the fedora-review + state until it's determined how to merge them into CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 02:01:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:01:59 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080201.l1821xFL011016@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225237: Merge Review: acpid Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has denied Kevin Fenzi 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi Thanks for the quick fixes and reply... 1. good. ok. 2. good. ok. 3.1 good. ok. 3.2 I suppose so. ok. 3.3 good. ok. 3.4 Not sure why it's complaining about that 0755 init script. ;( good on the prereqs. 3.5 good. ok. 4.1 Humm...I haven't seen that used for /var/log/FOO files before... I guess there aren't many packages that make such files. Looking at for example vixie-cron, it just has no mention of the log file at all. I guess the question is: do we want this package to remove the /var/log/acpid log when the package is removed? Or should it linger around? We should probibly decide what behavior is desired and make all the packages that create /var/log files do the same thing... In fact I am hard pressed to find another package that does things the way this one does. Do you have any example? scrollkeeper appears to ghost the log file, but yum, x.org, vixie-cron just don't claim anything for their log file (ie, it's unowned). 4.2 good. ok. 4.3 good. ok. Setting it back to you to comment on the 4.1 issue. When you do, please assign it back to me and change the fedora-review flag back to ? Thanks again for the quick fixes... From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 02:02:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:02:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080202.l1822B0S011049@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |pknirsch at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-07 21:01 EST ------- Thanks for the quick fixes and reply... 1. good. ok. 2. good. ok. 3.1 good. ok. 3.2 I suppose so. ok. 3.3 good. ok. 3.4 Not sure why it's complaining about that 0755 init script. ;( good on the prereqs. 3.5 good. ok. 4.1 Humm...I haven't seen that used for /var/log/FOO files before... I guess there aren't many packages that make such files. Looking at for example vixie-cron, it just has no mention of the log file at all. I guess the question is: do we want this package to remove the /var/log/acpid log when the package is removed? Or should it linger around? We should probibly decide what behavior is desired and make all the packages that create /var/log files do the same thing... In fact I am hard pressed to find another package that does things the way this one does. Do you have any example? scrollkeeper appears to ghost the log file, but yum, x.org, vixie-cron just don't claim anything for their log file (ie, it's unowned). 4.2 good. ok. 4.3 good. ok. Setting it back to you to comment on the 4.1 issue. When you do, please assign it back to me and change the fedora-review flag back to ? Thanks again for the quick fixes... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 02:08:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:08:44 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226660] Merge Review: xterm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080208.l1828ipN011577@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226660: Merge Review: xterm Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has granted Miroslav Lichvar 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226660 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi Thanks for the prompt fixes. Just to record here, we discussed adding the desktop file today in the #fedora-desktop irc channel. It seems it should be fine to do so. If this turns out to be a problem due to xterm being installed for the gdm failsafe mode, we can always go back and remove the desktop file. I see no further blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. I think the current plan is to leave this review assigned to you, and with the fedora-review flag set to + until it can be determined how to set them up in CVS. Thanks again. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 02:08:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:08:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226660] Merge Review: xterm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080208.l1828joW011593@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xterm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226660 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |mlichvar at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-07 21:08 EST ------- Thanks for the prompt fixes. Just to record here, we discussed adding the desktop file today in the #fedora-desktop irc channel. It seems it should be fine to do so. If this turns out to be a problem due to xterm being installed for the gdm failsafe mode, we can always go back and remove the desktop file. I see no further blockers here, so this package is APPROVED. I think the current plan is to leave this review assigned to you, and with the fedora-review flag set to + until it can be determined how to set them up in CVS. Thanks again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 02:47:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 21:47:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080247.l182lrfL014008@bugzilla.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: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-07 21:47 EST ------- ok. Understood on the versioning... there are other projects that also do just iteger releases, for example: xterm (version 223 now). >Then there is the case where the user builds his kernel without module >support. I think the approach should be the same as with packages that >only support specific kernel features, such as CIFS. I looked over the >SAMBA spec file, and nothing jumped out at me as a kernel module build >dependency. Yeah, I don't see anything there either. I guess just having the 2.6.19 dependency... >I ran several tests eCryptfs on x86_64 with kernel-2.6.19-1.2895.fc6 >and ext3 as the lower filesystem, and I did not get any errors on >unmount. ok. I will retest here... >In response to comments #17 and #18, I have updated the SPEC file and >have generated an updated source RPM. Except for an extra comment in >the README, the source tarball remains unchanged. >Source RPM: > >http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-9-1.src.rpm > >SPEC file: > >http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec Humm. I don't see this addressed: > 1. Might include the following as %doc files: > AUTHORS NEWS THANKS On point 2, you might consider litterally having: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in the spec. Then you wouldn't need to remember to change the Requires: ecryptfs = 9-1 on every upgrade. On point3, I see you have --disable-rpath, so hopefully that fixes the rpath issues. I will do a build to confirm. On point4, dist tag looks good. I am having some mirror issues here, but as soon as thats solved, I will do another build and do some more testing. The package is looking pretty good from what I can see... If you could spin another release addressing the items above, that would be great. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 03:55:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:55:43 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226513] Merge Review: units In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080355.l183thru017512@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226513: Merge Review: units Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226513 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi I'd be happy to review this package... look for a full review in a bit. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 03:55:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:55:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226513] Merge Review: units In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080355.l183tjWL017520@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: units https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226513 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-07 22:55 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this package... look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 04:27:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:27:30 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226513] Merge Review: units In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080427.l184RU1K020357@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226513: Merge Review: units Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has denied Kevin Fenzi 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226513 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: e27f580474702e9138b332acbafafe5b units-1.86.tar.gz e27f580474702e9138b332acbafafe5b units-1.86.tar.gz.1 See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 0 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Might include in %doc: ChangeLog COPYING NEWS README 2. Buildroot should be the default one: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. rpmlint says: rpmlint on units-1.86-3.fc7.src.rpm W: units summary-ended-with-dot A utility for converting amounts from one unit to another. Suggest: remove . at the end of summary. W: units no-url-tag Suggest: add a "URL: http://www.gnu.org/software/units/units.html" W: units prereq-use /sbin/install-info Suggest: remove the "Prereq: /sbin/install-info" and replace per http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-47896da5fb26 62d75deefeb9ba75145a398515db with Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info 4. Don't use %makeinstall, instead use 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' per http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MakeInstall 5. Possible missing Buildrequires? checking for sin... no checking for tparm in -lncurses... no checking for tgetent in -ltermcap... no checking for readline in -lreadline... no Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 04:27:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:27:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226513] Merge Review: units In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080427.l184RgSV020404@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: units https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226513 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |harald at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-07 23:27 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: e27f580474702e9138b332acbafafe5b units-1.86.tar.gz e27f580474702e9138b332acbafafe5b units-1.86.tar.gz.1 See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 0 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Might include in %doc: ChangeLog COPYING NEWS README 2. Buildroot should be the default one: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. rpmlint says: rpmlint on units-1.86-3.fc7.src.rpm W: units summary-ended-with-dot A utility for converting amounts from one unit to another. Suggest: remove . at the end of summary. W: units no-url-tag Suggest: add a "URL: http://www.gnu.org/software/units/units.html" W: units prereq-use /sbin/install-info Suggest: remove the "Prereq: /sbin/install-info" and replace per http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-47896da5fb2662d75deefeb9ba75145a398515db with Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info 4. Don't use %makeinstall, instead use 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' per http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MakeInstall 5. Possible missing Buildrequires? checking for sin... no checking for tparm in -lncurses... no checking for tgetent in -ltermcap... no checking for readline in -lreadline... no Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 04:48:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:48:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080448.l184mxdt022150@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743 mitr at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ville.skytta at iki.fi ------- Additional Comments From mitr at redhat.com 2007-02-07 23:48 EST ------- I have just built expect-5.43.0-7 with the abovementioned changes (and some other cleanups). This leaves: E: expect invalid-soname /usr/lib/libexpect5.43.so libexpect5.43.so I have no idea where did the rpmlint's rules for soname come from. The upstream libexpect man page explicitly recommends linking with -lexpect5.43, so changing the soname would break this. I can change the soname, but it's a deviation from upstream and an extra patch to maintain, so I'd prefer to see some benefit to the change. Ville, any idea why rpmlint restricts soname values? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 04:50:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:50:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080450.l184om63022306@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gcc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778 toshio at tiki-lounge.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |toshio at tiki-lounge.com ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-07 23:50 EST ------- It's a requirement. See the third MUST item on: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines This was discussed a very long time ago, before the Packaging Committee was formed. Let me know if you consider this important enough that you'd like us to bring it up for discussion at a future Packaging Meeting. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 05:18:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 00:18:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080518.l185IM7k024158@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 toshio at tiki-lounge.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |toshio at tiki-lounge.com ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-08 00:18 EST ------- Canonicalizing the sources is a requirement: - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. The requirement predates the packaging committee but I belive I recall its purpose being to aid reviewers and possible automated QA scripts in verifying sources. Let me know if you consider this important enough for me to bring up at the next packaging committee meeting. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 05:22:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 00:22:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080522.l185MpdO024356@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 peter at thecodergeek.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |peter at thecodergeek.com ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-08 00:22 EST ------- Also, just a minor comment: The ExclusiveArch only has i386, which means that if a user tried to build it on an i686 system it would fail, for example. It is likely better to use %{ix86} here (which expands via RPM to the list of 'i386 i486 i586 i686'). Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 05:38:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 00:38:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080538.l185cA3Z024954@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 mitr at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- | ------- Additional Comments From mitr at redhat.com 2007-02-08 00:38 EST ------- Thanks! W: ncpfs no-url-tag FTP URL added W: ncpfs devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libncp.so W: ncpfs devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/ncp/obsolete/o_ndslib.h > And many more .h files. These should all be placed into a separate -devel > subpackage. Done. E: ncpfs setuid-binary /usr/bin/ncplogin root 04755 E: ncpfs non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ncplogin 04755 > A couple like these. I suppose these are necessary, but has anyone looked > at the security issues? A few security issues in ncpfs have been discovered, so at least someone has :) X build root is not correct; should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. X unversioned .so files should be in -devel subpackage. X headers present and should be in -devel package. Both fixed. Please review ncpfs-2.2.6-7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 07:13:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 02:13:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080713.l187DKVw028381@bugzilla.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: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-08 02:13 EST ------- A remark based on coarse visual inspection only The sources are LGPL'ed. Your spec 'BR: readline-devel'. -> Compiling/linking this package against readline will violate readline's GPL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 07:41:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 02:41:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080741.l187fvp4029419@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gcc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778 ------- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat.com 2007-02-08 02:41 EST ------- Yes, I do consider this important enough. Also, gcc isn't the only package that intentionally uses different spec naming, see e.g. kernel-2.6.spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:40:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:40:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225957] Merge Review: k3b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080840.l188eGQ8032700@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: k3b https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cgoorah at yahoo.com.au ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-08 03:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > - the /usr/lib/kde3/*.la files should be deleted Please ensure, that K3B really doesn't need it, else you will have a vague of bug report from users. Since KDE3 itself is heavily dependent on .la files. http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139445 If you are removing those .la files, ensure proper testing has been carried out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:42:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:42:30 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080842.l188gUdh000386@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226529: Merge Review: vixie-cron Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:42:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:42:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080842.l188gf7T000400@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vixie-cron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:42:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:42:47 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226505] Merge Review: ttcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080842.l188glmQ000410@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226505: Merge Review: ttcp Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226505 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:42:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:42:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226505] Merge Review: ttcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080842.l188gmhi000414@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ttcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226505 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:43:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:43:14 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226480] Merge Review: tclx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080843.l188hEVI000436@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226480: Merge Review: tclx Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226480 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:43:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:43:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226480] Merge Review: tclx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080843.l188hEQU000448@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tclx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226480 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:43:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:43:34 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226164] Merge Review: mtr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080843.l188hYoN000499@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226164: Merge Review: mtr Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226164 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:43:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:43:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226164] Merge Review: mtr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080843.l188hYlN000512@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mtr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226164 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:44:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:44:23 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226123] Merge Review: man-pages-de In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080844.l188iN78000600@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226123: Merge Review: man-pages-de Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226123 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:44:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:44:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226123] Merge Review: man-pages-de In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080844.l188iNHQ000605@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: man-pages-de https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226123 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:45:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:45:04 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225910] Merge Review: ipv6calc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080845.l188j462000689@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225910: Merge Review: ipv6calc Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225910 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:45:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:45:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225910] Merge Review: ipv6calc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080845.l188j4uF000693@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ipv6calc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225910 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:45:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:45:19 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225907] Merge Review: iptraf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080845.l188jJWB000710@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225907: Merge Review: iptraf Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225907 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:45:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:45:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225907] Merge Review: iptraf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080845.l188jKHk000715@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: iptraf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225907 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:45:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:45:35 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225859] Merge Review: groff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080845.l188jZS9000732@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225859: Merge Review: groff Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225859 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:45:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:45:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225859] Merge Review: groff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080845.l188jal9000736@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: groff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225859 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:47:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:47:12 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225662] Merge Review: crontabs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080847.l188lCZB000806@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225662: Merge Review: crontabs Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225662 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:47:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:47:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225662] Merge Review: crontabs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080847.l188lDKZ000810@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: crontabs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225662 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:47:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:47:30 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225288] Merge Review: at In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080847.l188lURh000835@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225288: Merge Review: at Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Marcela Maslanova has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 08:47:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:47:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225288] Merge Review: at In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080847.l188lUXa000839@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 09:03:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 04:03:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225983] Merge Review: less In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080903.l1893p78002837@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: less https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225983 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-08 04:03 EST ------- All problems except of permission problem - which is reported by rpmlint are fixed in less-394-7.fc7. It is a problem to change permissions in cvs so the best solution I see is to leave them as they are. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 09:05:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 04:05:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221884] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080905.l1895FQR002979@bugzilla.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: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221884 ------- Additional Comments From andy at andrewprice.me.uk 2007-02-08 04:05 EST ------- Just thought I'd let you know I haven't disappeared off the face of the earth. I haven't made a new release for a while but in svn there have been some interesting changes such as added i18n support. I've also sent some patches to rdiff-backup to fix some deeper bugs and started a branch to redo the GUI, refactor the code, and generally make improvements that would be hard to do by patching the trunk in its current state. I'm busy with course work at the moment but I'll let you know when I make a new release. I've also signed up on the Fedora accounts system as "andyp", if that helps at all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 09:06:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 04:06:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080906.l1896t1M003145@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 09:15:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 04:15:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223008] Review Request: perl-File-Copy-Recursive - Perl extension for recursively copying files and directories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080915.l189Fhti003907@bugzilla.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-Copy-Recursive - Perl extension for recursively copying files and directories https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223008 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |0.30-2 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-08 04:15 EST ------- Must have missed to close this - packages had been build and pushed for quite a while. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 09:37:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 04:37:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702080937.l189bBYi005371@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From tom at dbservice.com 2007-02-08 04:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > * License added LICENSE (GPLv2) btw, quicklz is licensed under the GPL, so that shouldn't be a problem. > > * Timestamps No reason to add '-p' when installing seom.pc, because that file is auto-generated. But I added '-p' when installing the headers.. -$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -L.libs -o $@ src/$@/main.c -lseom $($@LIBS) +$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) $(INCLUDES) $(LDFLAGS) -L.libs -o seom-$@ src/$@/main.c -lseom $($@LIBS) 'seom-$@' is ok in the srpm, but when compiling seom from sources more than once it's bad because then make will recompile the apps every time make is executed.. and, what's wrong with 'libtool --mode=install'? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 11:10:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:10:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225734] Merge Review: esound In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081110.l18BAtw8012209@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: esound https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225734 alexl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|alexl at redhat.com |bnocera at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From alexl at redhat.com 2007-02-08 06:10 EST ------- New Initial Owner: bnocera at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 11:11:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:11:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081111.l18BBme5012297@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-08 06:11 EST ------- To recap: just waiting on availability of the 1.5.0 .phar from upstream; Tim are you able to push that out? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 11:11:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:11:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226034] Merge Review: libmusicbrainz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081111.l18BBtDZ012325@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libmusicbrainz https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226034 alexl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|alexl at redhat.com |bnocera at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From alexl at redhat.com 2007-02-08 06:11 EST ------- New Initial Owner: bnocera at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 11:12:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:12:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226374] Merge Review: rhythmbox In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081112.l18BCFif012362@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: rhythmbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226374 alexl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|alexl at redhat.com |bnocera at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From alexl at redhat.com 2007-02-08 06:12 EST ------- New Initial Owner: bnocera at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 11:12:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:12:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226500] Merge Review: totem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081112.l18BCapx012419@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: totem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226500 alexl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|alexl at redhat.com |bnocera at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From alexl at redhat.com 2007-02-08 06:12 EST ------- New Initial Owner: bnocera at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 11:17:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:17:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081117.l18BHnQg012882@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 ------- Additional Comments From alexl at redhat.com 2007-02-08 06:17 EST ------- Fixed in 1.16-3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 11:27:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081127.l18BRhRp013318@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments From bnocera at redhat.com 2007-02-08 06:27 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > A couple of issues for gnome-media; > > NEEDSWORK: > * rpmlint (on the binary package, the -devel subpackage, and the srpm) produces > a number of warnings/errors. Most of it can possibly be ignored, but I think the > rpath issue need to be fixed > >> > [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm > E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog Fixed > E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome > E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/lib64/libglade/2.0/libgnome-media-profiles.so ['/usr/lib64'] > E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath > /usr/bin/gnome-audio-profiles-properties ['/usr/lib64'] > E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-cd ['/usr/lib64'] > E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/cddb-track-editor > ['/usr/lib64'] > W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas > W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas > W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas > W: gnome-media non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas Fixed. > [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-devel-2.17.90-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm > E: gnome-media-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog > W: gnome-media-devel no-documentation > [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-1.fc7.src.rpm > E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog > E: gnome-media non-utf8-spec-file gnome-media.spec Fixed. > W: gnome-media unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnome > W: gnome-media macro-in-%changelog _datadir Fixed. > W: gnome-media mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 22) Fixed. > * scrollkeeper-update is not being properly called in the post and postun > sections according to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-a4ea5e1946bc113d19d24b4f5bfb543c579e5fc8 Fixed > * "--add-category X-Redhat-Base" option to desktop-file-install is no longer > necesary That's commented. > Not so importantly, the "disable-schemas-install" option can be pass to the > configure script instead of setting and unsetting > GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTAL env. Fixed. All of this is fixed in gnome-media-2.17.90-3.fc7, I'll need to work on the rpath issue now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 11:32:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:32:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081132.l18BWcHX013516@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cbalint at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-08 06:32 EST ------- Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-1.src.rpm Updated. Tested the build in mock, and olso on various arches: i386,x86_64,sparc,alpha,ppc becouse it required an extra -fPIC flag to link objects correctly, i make those test across arches. Only minor issue, to add -soname versioning, anyway rpmlint complain as W: only.I will add soname versioning but not right now, anyway the project seem to update their source once in severeal year, so -soname doesnt make sense for an exact -compat versioning between releases. can review please ? thank you, /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 11:50:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:50:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] 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=227811 Summary: Review Request:
- Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-af.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-af-0.20060117-1.src.rpm Description: Afrikaans hunspell dictionary 1) http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Dictionaries#Afrikaans_.28South_Africa.29 2) LGPL 3) splits this dictionary out of OOo to becomes a standalone package which can be independently updated and reused by other applications, e.g. firefox when it moves to hunspell -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 11:51:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:51:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081151.l18BpY3e014361@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request:
- |dictionary -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 12:05:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:05:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081205.l18C5tp3015170@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 pknirsch at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pknirsch at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com ------- Additional Comments From pknirsch at redhat.com 2007-02-08 07:05 EST ------- Hm. I've looked at other packages with logfiles in /var/log, and several actually owned those files: pam: %ghost %verify(not md5 size mtime) /var/log/faillog scrollkeeker: %ghost %{_localstatedir}/log/scrollkeeper.log setup: %ghost %attr(0644,root,root) %verify(not md5 size mtime) /var/log/lastlog So there are a few other examples where the logfile is at least being referenced by a package using a %ghost entry. I mean, it boils basically down to what files a package should own. And typically (and historically) those consisted of the files that were clearly and distinctly connected to that package. There could be the packaged files or, like e.g. for /var/cache files created during the lifetime of a package on a system. And imo /var/log/acpid is pretty clearly connected to one specific package, namely acpid. ;) Maybe this point should really be brought up at the next Fedora meeting to see what the opinion of others are on it. The above is just my personal view after maintaining packages for quite some time, but i'd have no problem if the general rule would be to keep /var/log files unreferenced. Read ya, Phil -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 12:13:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225609] Merge Review: bash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081213.l18CDrUR015851@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225609 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-08 07:13 EST ------- Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 12:14:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:14:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081214.l18CEqYf015939@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-08 07:14 EST ------- What do you mean? These is "install -c -p -m 0644" used for man page in spec file. Is there any place I don't preserve timestamps? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 12:22:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:22:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081222.l18CMORv016300@bugzilla.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: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 ------- Additional Comments From mattdm at mattdm.org 2007-02-08 07:22 EST ------- Oh, good point. It actually has an internal readline alternative it can use. I'll check with the author about the licensing and readline, and if there's no ability to make a change I'll modify it to not use readline. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 12:25:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:25:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081225.l18CPLre016445@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments From bnocera at redhat.com 2007-02-08 07:25 EST ------- And fixed the rpath issue in gnome-media-2.17.90-4.fc7. Let me know if anything else needs work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 12:25:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:25:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081225.l18CPlDG016483@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 07:25 EST ------- Another needswork; g-s-monitor use of %makeinstall macro should be changed to "make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install", according to the guildelines @ http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 12:39:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:39:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081239.l18CdPPW017149@bugzilla.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: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 ------- Additional Comments From mattdm at mattdm.org 2007-02-08 07:39 EST ------- Oh, wait, no coffee yet this morning. The LGPL allows conversion to GPL, so technically I can do that without any upstream input. So really the consideration here comes down to how much using gnu readline benefits the program. Right now, since there's actually no dynamic library, using LGPL over GPL provides no benefit at all to anyone, so I might as well make the conversion. Further, it's probable that the calc library itself could remain under the gpl with just the calc command-line binary converted -- the best of both worlds. Because probably online the command-line util actually links against readline. (Or am I missing something there?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 12:52:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 07:52:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081252.l18Cq3if018280@bugzilla.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: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-08 07:52 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Oh, wait, no coffee yet this morning. The LGPL allows conversion to GPL, so > technically I can do that without any upstream input. Yes, AFAICT, _YOU_ could re-licence/re-publish the whole package under the GPL (With all implications of it - You'd be the upstream, shipping a derived product). Yet another solution would be not to link against readline. > Further, it's probable that the calc library itself could remain under the gpl > with just the calc command-line binary converted -- the best of both worlds. > Because probably online the command-line util actually links against readline. One would have to check the sources for details - Unfortunately this package applies a pretty ugly and not easy to understand build/make-system > (Or am I missing something there?) I don't think so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:00:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:00:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081300.l18D0fBL019026@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:06:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:06:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081306.l18D6MB8019346@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-08 08:06 EST ------- Works here with slides.xml. I get '(nXML Valid)' in the mode bar, and 'Using schema /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/nxml-mode/schema/docbook.rnc' in the minibuffer. Perhaps you have a .emacs file that is preventing things from working correctly? Do you have the psgml package installed, possibly overriding our own mode? FWIW, I get nxml-mode for .xml, .xsl, .rng and .xhtml, which is precisely the set of modes expected: (setq auto-mode-alist (cons '("\\.\\(xml\\|xsl\\|rng\\|xhtml\\)\\'" . nxml-mode) auto-mode-alist)) SGML and HTML already have handlers (sgml-mode), and I'm not sure we want to override that (do we?). http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/nxml-mode/emacs-nxml-mode.spec http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/nxml-mode/emacs-nxml-mode-0.20041004.1-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:07:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:07:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081307.l18D7oMs019490@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-08 08:07 EST ------- Please check the latest libusb (7.fc7). I added the static subpackage there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:11:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:11:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081311.l18DBtQm019688@bugzilla.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: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 ------- Additional Comments From mattdm at mattdm.org 2007-02-08 08:11 EST ------- Yeah, rather than using autoconf, it does a similar bunch of tests in its makefile. Good times. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:14:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:14:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081314.l18DEasf019796@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:18:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:18:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081318.l18DIhQd020074@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-08 08:18 EST ------- > check if the -devel package needs to Require the main package, > and if so, change it to Requires: bzip2 = %{version}-%{release} > - Remove the Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version} The -devel packages does NOT need the "main package", but the bzip2-libs package (comment #2): Requires: bzip2-libs = %{version}-%{release} in the -devel package. The %release in there makes sure that -devel and -libs package are in sync always (think run-time bug-fixes + %changelog of both packages), also for a "yum install bzip2-devel" when an older bzip2-libs is installed already. Without the strict dependency it would be possible to install the latest bzip2-devel while keeping an older bzip2-libs which e.g. has bugs. The main package depends on the -libs package through an automatic dependency on "libbz2.so.1", created by rpmbuild. If there is reason to not trust the accuracy of that dependency, an explicit dependency on a specific package %version-%release would be needed. The simple "Requires: bzip2-libs = 1.0.4" does not add any value except that it doesn't trust an automatic upgrade from 1.0.3 to 1.0.4. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:20:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:20:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081320.l18DKFp0020256@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments From bnocera at redhat.com 2007-02-08 08:20 EST ------- And will really be fixed in gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7, I forgot to *actually* apply the configure changes... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:21:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:21:00 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081321.l18DL060020347@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225822: Merge Review: gnome-media Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola has denied Matthias Clasen 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola I was looking at the cvs commit mail, and it seems you forgot to actually commit the change ;). I'm waiting for anonymous cvs to sync up so I can properly test it. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:21:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:21:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081321.l18DL1hd020355@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 08:20 EST ------- I was looking at the cvs commit mail, and it seems you forgot to actually commit the change ;). I'm waiting for anonymous cvs to sync up so I can properly test it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:27:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:27:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081327.l18DReL2021023@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-08 08:27 EST ------- > * call to scrollkeeper-update in post section is inclomplete, should be called > like; "scrollkeeper-update -q -o %{_datadir}/omf/%{name} || :" There is no need to slavishly follow the examples in the guidelines to the letter. The current call works fine -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:38:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:38:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081338.l18Dc9fM021631@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-08 08:38 EST ------- * The post and postun Requires on desktop-file-utils is not necessary There is no such requires in my checkout of the spec file ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:46:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:46:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081346.l18Dkwt7022650@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 08:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > * The post and postun Requires on desktop-file-utils is not necessary > > There is no such requires in my checkout of the spec file ? Yeah, it's truly not there, i must have confused it with some other package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 13:58:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 08:58:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081358.l18DwkSK023704@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-08 08:58 EST ------- * Thu Feb 8 2007 Matthias Clasen - 2.17.6-2 - Remove an obsolete Obsoletes: - Don't add X-Redhat-Base to the desktop file anymore -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:02:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:02:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081402.l18E27kR024042@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-08 09:01 EST ------- Thanks for all comments - problems from review in comment 4 are fixed in aspell-0.60.5-3.fc7. In this version aspell-import has changed permissions - so the perl is not required. aspell dictationaries are arch dependent - so there is no problem in their location in {_libdir}/aspell-0.60. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:06:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081406.l18E6oOo024810@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-08 09:06 EST ------- unable to get srpm file --> error 550 will you check it out please ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:07:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:07:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226351] Merge Review: qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081407.l18E7PF7024879@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226351 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-08 09:07 EST ------- > I think this would break designer Help->Manual menu How so? It would be no less broken than the current situation (or when qt-devel-docs wasn't installed). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:10:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081410.l18EAb3b025251@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-08 09:10 EST ------- Not clear to me what the next step is here... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:13:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:13:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081413.l18EDdmx025511@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 09:13 EST ------- The rpath issue is still present; [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libglade/2.0/libgnome-media-profiles.so ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-audio-profiles-properties ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/gnome-cd ['/usr/lib64'] E: gnome-media binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/cddb-track-editor ['/usr/lib64'] W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas The problem is caused by the package using it's local copy of libtool, as can be seen from the build log (excerpt below). I believe this can be fixed by having a buildrequire on libtool and forcing the build to use the system libtool ("make LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool ...") ( /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=install /usr/bin/install -c 'cddb-slave2-properties' '/var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/cddb-slave2-properties' /usr/bin/install -c cddb-slave2-properties /var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/cddb-slave2-properties test -z "/usr/libexec" || mkdir -p -- "/var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/libexec" /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=install /usr/bin/install -c 'CDDBSlave2' '/var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/libexec/CDDBSlave2' /usr/bin/install -c CDDBSlave2 /var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/libexec/CDDBSlave2 /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=install /usr/bin/install -c 'cddb-track-editor' '/var/tmp/gnome-media-2.17.90-5.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/libexec/cddb-track-editor' ) Probably an upstream issue, I noticed the install section of the build doesn't respect the configure option to disable scrollkeeper; it still variously attempts to update the scrollkeeper. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:17:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:17:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081417.l18EHSEX025947@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 09:17 EST ------- Sorry about that, should be there now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:18:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:18:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227719] Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081418.l18EIkjc026058@bugzilla.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: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227719 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:20:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:20:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227719] Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081420.l18EKGGV026267@bugzilla.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: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227719 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-08 09:20 EST ------- mock build is fine rpmlint is silent. will review tomorrow -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:21:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:21:59 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225863] Merge Review: gsl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081421.l18ELxV5026414@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225863: Merge Review: gsl Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jos???? Matos has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225863 ------- Additional Comments from Jos???? Matos I have some suggestions regarding the spec file: - Use the BuildRoot defined in the guidelines (this is suggested but in no way a blocker) - for gsl-devel require gsl = %{version}-%{release} it is better to be safe :-) - make %{?_smp_mflags} - it works, I have tested it - in %install it is necessary to clean the buildroot and also %makeinstall can be replaced with make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT, again I have tested an it works. - finally the file attributes should be %defattr(-,root,root,-) There are other issues I would like to search, mainly related with the static libraries, but before going there I would like to hear you on these changes. One final note, a matter of style, I like more the description used in the spec file distributed in the tar ball, while the one present in the spec file is, maybe, too terse. Again this is a matter of taste so it is in no way a blocker. I will put in the next entry a patch with these changes... From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:21:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:21:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225863] Merge Review: gsl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081421.l18ELxnO026418@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gsl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225863 jamatos at fc.up.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jamatos at fc.up.pt Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jamatos at fc.up.pt 2007-02-08 09:21 EST ------- I have some suggestions regarding the spec file: - Use the BuildRoot defined in the guidelines (this is suggested but in no way a blocker) - for gsl-devel require gsl = %{version}-%{release} it is better to be safe :-) - make %{?_smp_mflags} - it works, I have tested it - in %install it is necessary to clean the buildroot and also %makeinstall can be replaced with make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT, again I have tested an it works. - finally the file attributes should be %defattr(-,root,root,-) There are other issues I would like to search, mainly related with the static libraries, but before going there I would like to hear you on these changes. One final note, a matter of style, I like more the description used in the spec file distributed in the tar ball, while the one present in the spec file is, maybe, too terse. Again this is a matter of taste so it is in no way a blocker. I will put in the next entry a patch with these changes... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:23:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:23:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225863] Merge Review: gsl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081423.l18ENkXG026537@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gsl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225863 ------- Additional Comments From jamatos at fc.up.pt 2007-02-08 09:23 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147653) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147653&action=view) patch to satisfy packaging guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:27:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:27:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081427.l18ERaHL026921@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments From bnocera at redhat.com 2007-02-08 09:27 EST ------- I checked with --disable-rpath on i386, and it didn't happen. I'll try and work on that upstream instead for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:29:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081429.l18ETQHN027159@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-08 09:29 EST ------- Seems to meet packaging guidelines. Licensing is good, copying is in %doc. Spec is in Legible American English. Builds on 1386. Build Deps are good. No locale info, OK. To Be Continued. . . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:30:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:30:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081430.l18EUWwv027278@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-08 09:30 EST ------- Got the build error again! [limb at zanoni SPECS]$ rpmbuild -ba methane.spec Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.66581 + umask 022 + cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD + rm -rf methane-1.4.7 + /bin/gzip -dc /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/methane-1.4.7.tgz + tar -xf - + STATUS=0 + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']' + cd methane-1.4.7 ++ /usr/bin/id -u + '[' 500 = 0 ']' ++ /usr/bin/id -u + '[' 500 = 0 ']' + /bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + echo 'Patch #0 (methane-clanlib08.patch):' Patch #0 (methane-clanlib08.patch): + patch -p1 -b --suffix .cl08 -s + echo 'Patch #1 (methane-highscore.patch):' Patch #1 (methane-highscore.patch): + patch -p1 -b --suffix .highscore -s + echo 'Patch #2 (methane-fullscreen.patch):' Patch #2 (methane-fullscreen.patch): + patch -p1 -b --suffix .fullscreen -s ++ find -type f + chmod -x ./install ./i_win32 ./install.sh ./history ./i_linux ./docs/potion.gif ./docs/zoom.gif ./docs/whirly.gif ./docs/spring.gif ./docs/gamepic.gif ./docs/puff.gif ./docs/backdrop.gif ./docs/turbo.gif ./docs/sucker.gif ./docs/title.gif ./docs/bug.gif ./docs/mbug.gif ./docs/block.gif ./docs/cookie.gif ./docs/gen.gif ./docs/spike.gif ./docs/info.html ./copying ./i_riscos ./source/suck.cpp ./source/game.cpp ./source/player.h ./source/misc.cpp ./source/riscos/swicalls.cpp ./source/riscos/extract ./source/riscos/swicalls.h ./source/riscos/doc.h ./source/riscos/doc.cpp ./source/riscos/makefile ./source/riscos/makeold './source/riscos/!run' './source/riscos/!sprites' './source/riscos/!boot' ./source/gfxoff.cpp ./source/player.cpp ./source/baddie.h ./source/game.h ./source/objlist.h ./source/bitgroup.h ./source/bititem.h ./source/data/gfxdata3.cpp ./source/data/snddata.cpp ./source/data/mapdata.cpp ./source/data/gfxdata.cpp ./source/data/gfxdata2.cpp ./source/global.h ./source/goodie.cpp ./source/maps.cpp ./source/snddef.h ./source/mikmod/audiodrv.h ./source/mikmod/audiodrv.cpp ./source/bititem.cpp ./source/target.cpp ./source/gasobj.h ./source/suck.h ./source/boss.h ./source/power.cpp ./source/weapon.cpp ./source/boss.cpp ./source/bitgroup.cpp ./source/target.h ./source/linux/main.cpp.highscore ./source/linux/main.cpp ./source/linux/makefile.cl08 ./source/linux/font32.cpp ./source/linux/doc.h ./source/linux/doc.cpp ./source/linux/main.cpp.fullscreen ./source/linux/makefile ./source/linux/font32.h ./source/linux/doc.cpp.highscore ./source/objtypes.h ./source/objlist.cpp ./source/gfxdef.h ./source/gasobj.cpp ./source/mapdef.h ./source/baddie.cpp ./source/global.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/methane.ico ./source/win32/mfc/frame.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/methane.sln ./source/win32/mfc/methane.dsp ./source/win32/mfc/methane.vcproj ./source/win32/mfc/help.h ./source/win32/mfc/methane.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/about.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/doc.h ./source/win32/mfc/doc.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/frame.h ./source/win32/mfc/methane.dsw ./source/win32/mfc/view.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/methane.rc ./source/win32/mfc/speed.h ./source/win32/mfc/methane.h ./source/win32/mfc/view.h ./source/win32/mfc/help.cpp ./source/win32/mfc/about.h ./source/win32/mfc/speed.cpp ./source/bitdraw.h ./source/sound.cpp ./source/power.h ./source/sound.h ./source/goodie.h ./source/misc.h ./source/bitdraw.cpp ./source/maps.h ./source/weapon.h ./todo ./authors ./readme + cat /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/methane-help.desktop + sed s/version/1.4.7/ + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.15963 + umask 022 + cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD + cd methane-1.4.7 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + pushd source/linux /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/methane-1.4.7/source/linux /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/methane-1.4.7 + make -j2 'CXXFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables' Compiling Super Methane Brothers. Compiling ../gfxoff.cpp... ================================= Compiling ../baddie.cpp... gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables `pkg-config --cflags clanCore-0.8 clanDisplay-0.8 clanApp-0.8 clanGL-0.8` -DMETHANE_MIKMOD `libmikmod-config --cflags` -I ../linux -c ../gfxoff.cpp -o MainSource/gfxoff.o mkdir: cannot create directory `MainSource': File exists make: *** [MainSource/baddie.o] Error 1 make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.15963 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.15963 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:31:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:31:41 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081431.l18EVfgN027439@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225838: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola has granted Matthias Clasen 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola rpmlint now silent on srpm, and gives warnings (which can be ignored) on the binary [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-system-monitor-2.17.6-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-system-monitor no-documentation W: gnome-system-monitor non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-system-monitor.schemas APPROVED. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:31:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:31:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081431.l18EVgls027447@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dakingun at gmail.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 09:31 EST ------- rpmlint now silent on srpm, and gives warnings (which can be ignored) on the binary [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-system-monitor-2.17.6-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-system-monitor no-documentation W: gnome-system-monitor non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-system-monitor.schemas APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:32:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:32:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081432.l18EWUNP027507@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ------- Additional Comments From katzj at redhat.com 2007-02-08 09:32 EST ------- Removal of the bindir, etc definitions at the top of the spec file move the cpio binary from /bin to /usr/bin which is a bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:34:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:34:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081434.l18EYjFC027656@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|besfahbo at redhat.com |pace at alum.mit.edu Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-08 09:34 EST ------- * Thu Feb 8 2007 Matthias Clasen - 2:1.1.3-3 - Package review cleanups - Don't ship a static library -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:35:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:35:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081435.l18EZWSo027738@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-08 09:35 EST ------- Ah, probably a smp build error, removing "%{?_smp_mflags}" from the make command should fix this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:37:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:37:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081437.l18EbEkK027907@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 09:37 EST ------- That explains it, I was testing on x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:41:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:41:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081441.l18EfJmQ028367@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-08 09:41 EST ------- It did. You want a patch posted or just to alter your own copy of the .spec? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:44:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:44:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225957] Merge Review: k3b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081444.l18EiwMs028833@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: k3b https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-08 09:44 EST ------- > the /usr/lib/kde3/*.la files should be deleted I can vouge that in many cases, kde apps (still) do need these .la files. These are of the type that cause no harm (vs. those in %_libdir), so I'd strongly recommend leaving them as-is. Re: DocPath in .desktop file Mostly harmless warning. While on the topic of .desktop files, I'd recommend using this instead (to preserve upstream .desktop vendor): desktop-file-install --vendor="" \ --dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde \ --add-category X-Red-Hat-Base \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/kde/%{name}.desktop (not sure the point of adding X-Red-Hat-Base, but a comment justifying it's use in the specfile would be helpful for posterity). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 14:47:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:47:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081447.l18Eld1D029029@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-08 09:47 EST ------- No duplicate files, has a %clean section, perms look OK. No wierd macros. Code, not content. No large or executable docs. Has a .desktop file. Seems to meet all MUSTS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:01:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:01:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225819] Merge Review: gnome-keyring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081501.l18F1CfJ029924@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225819 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 10:01 EST ------- GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales appropriately * Buildrequires properly listed * rpmlint silent/OK (there's an ignorable warning on the -devel subpackages [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-keyring-devel-0.7.3-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-keyring-devel no-documentation) * Source file matches upstream 4478d21d3ef56a3992411bee7ab6df73 gnome-keyring-0.7.3.tar.bz2 NEEDSWORK: * Complete url to the SOURCE is not provided. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:01:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:01:12 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225819] Merge Review: gnome-keyring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081501.l18F1Cuc029919@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225819: Merge Review: gnome-keyring Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola has granted Deji Akingunola 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225819 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales appropriately * Buildrequires properly listed * rpmlint silent/OK (there's an ignorable warning on the -devel subpackages [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-keyring-devel-0.7.3-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-keyring-devel no-documentation) * Source file matches upstream 4478d21d3ef56a3992411bee7ab6df73 gnome-keyring-0.7.3.tar.bz2 NEEDSWORK: * Complete url to the SOURCE is not provided. APPROVED. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:03:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:03:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225819] Merge Review: gnome-keyring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081503.l18F3ENO030109@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225819 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dakingun at gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:08:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:08:00 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081508.l18F80iv030473@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225820: Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:08:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081508.l18F81Pr030482@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dakingun at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:12:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:12:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081512.l18FCKRe030766@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|varekova at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-08 10:12 EST ------- Fixed in logwatch-7.3.2-7.fc7. The zero lenght files remains in logwatch (they are necessary - but they will be nonempty soon). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:14:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:14:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081514.l18FEJ30030948@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-08 10:14 EST ------- Runs, as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:15:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:15:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081515.l18FFE5V030993@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 10:15 EST ------- GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales appropriately * Buildrequires properly listed * rpmlint silent on srpm and a warning that can be ignored on the binary [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-keyring-manager-2.17.0-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-keyring-manager non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-keyring-manager.schemas * Source file matches upstream 8dc9c133ccdfb2729898a05afa177a0d gnome-keyring-manager-2.17.0.tar.bz2 NEEDSWORK: * Complete url to the SOURCE is not provided. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:15:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:15:13 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081515.l18FFDVX030985@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225820: Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola has granted Deji Akingunola 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales appropriately * Buildrequires properly listed * rpmlint silent on srpm and a warning that can be ignored on the binary [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-keyring-manager-2.17.0-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-keyring-manager non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-keyring-manager.schemas * Source file matches upstream 8dc9c133ccdfb2729898a05afa177a0d gnome-keyring-manager-2.17.0.tar.bz2 NEEDSWORK: * Complete url to the SOURCE is not provided. APPROVED. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:16:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:16:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225838] Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081516.l18FGvll031097@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-system-monitor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225838 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mclasen at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 10:16 EST ------- Sorry, the owner actually have a name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:19:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:19:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081519.l18FJ56v031212@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dakingun at gmail.com |alexl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 10:18 EST ------- Re-assigning back to the owner -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:18:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:18:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081518.l18FIxvp031202@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-08 10:18 EST ------- Will the smp build fix still work on uniprocessor machines? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:20:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:20:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225819] Merge Review: gnome-keyring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081520.l18FKCUC031436@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225819 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dakingun at gmail.com |alexl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 10:20 EST ------- Bugzilla needswork; re-assigning to owner -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:20:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:20:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081520.l18FKOqH031469@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-08 10:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > I think the ruling is still out on forcing everybody who installs an automake > macro to require automake. There is no need to require automake, it is also possible to own /usr/share/aclocal/ I personally would let that choice to the packager. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:23:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:23:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081523.l18FNKL8031825@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-08 10:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > I think the ruling is still out on forcing everybody who installs an automake > > macro to require automake. > > There is no need to require automake, it is also possible to own > /usr/share/aclocal/ > I personally would let that choice to the packager. There is no choice but to require automake. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:31:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:31:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081531.l18FV4lK000372@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 ------- Additional Comments From sgrubb at redhat.com 2007-02-08 10:31 EST ------- amtu-1.0.4-5.fc7 was built to satisfy most of these requests. I looked at AMTUHowTo.txt and don't see anything wrong with it. Neither vi, cat, or gedit have a problem displaying the file...so I am reluctant to make a change for something that's not causing problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:36:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:36:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081536.l18FawAq001355@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-08 10:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > There is no choice but to require automake. Why? It may be useful, in that people wanting to use the macro in their project don't have to install automake by hand, but automake is not necessarily needed when doing development with a library. automake brings in perl, it is a big dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:45:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:45:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081545.l18FjBuu002087@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-08 10:44 EST ------- fixed in -25.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:55:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081555.l18Ft6XO002842@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-08 10:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Will the smp build fix still work on uniprocessor machines? Yes, it will still work fine on uniprocessor machines. Do you want me to upload a new spec + srpm without the spmflags, or do you trust me on my blue eyes that I'll remove that before import and can you approve this? If you approve this please also set the fedora-cvs flag at "?". CVS-admin's I would like an FC-6 + devel tree only. I feel no need to release this for FC-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:59:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:59:17 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081559.l18FxHt5003153@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 227674: Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jon Ciesla has granted Jon Ciesla 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 ------- Additional Comments from Jon Ciesla I have blue eyes, too, but they're in a jar on my desk. ;) I trust you. APPROVED. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 15:59:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:59:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081559.l18FxdMJ003232@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 limb at jcomserv.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+, fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-08 10:59 EST ------- I have blue eyes, too, but they're in a jar on my desk. ;) I trust you. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 16:13:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:13:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226104] Merge Review: logrotate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081613.l18GDAMN004374@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logrotate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226104 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-08 11:12 EST ------- >No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag. There isn't any URL you can download sources from. RH is upstream for logrotate. > Use DESTDIR instead of PREFIX in %install I can't use DESTDIR, since there isn't standart Makefile in logrotate. > Is it necessary to create the empty logrotate.status? bz #55809 see: logrotate-3.7.4-12.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 16:30:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:30:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081630.l18GUkxc006316@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gcc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778 toshio at tiki-lounge.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |197974 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-08 11:30 EST ------- Added to the Packaging Committee schedule. I'll update this bug with any information I turn up from spot or the mailing list archives before then. If you (or DaveJ regarding the kernel) are interested in arguing the case for %{name}-%{version}, discussion will kick off on fedora-packaging at redhat.com and continue on #fedora-packaging on freenode, Tuesday, February 13th, 17:00 UTC, if we can't achieve agreement on the mailing list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 16:30:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:30:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197974] Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081630.l18GUoUn006351@bugzilla.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: Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines Alias: FE-GUIDELINES https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197974 toshio at tiki-lounge.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |225778 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 16:41:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:41:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081641.l18Gf3HX007224@bugzilla.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: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-08 11:41 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147667) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147667&action=view) Mock build log of strigi-0.3.11-1.fc7 Mock build log of strigi-0.3.11-1 on FC7 i386 is attached. Well, * compiler flags - does not pass fedora specific compilation flags. * conditional dependency - Check: ------------------------------------------ -- Xerces-C was not found. ------------------------------------------ * desktop file - /usr/bin/strigiclient seems to be a GUI program and desktop file for this program should be added, perhaps. * File location - All header files under /usr/include in -devel package should be moved to %{_includedir}/%{name}. From I checked the #include entry, this is no problem and putting header files directly under /usr/include should be avoied. * Dependency - Check the dependency for -devel package. I have never checked the header files for Qt4 package. However, /usr/include/strigi/qtdbus/strigidbus.h includes: --------------------------------------------- #include --------------------------------------------- This means that -devel package should require some Qt4 related packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 17:12:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:12:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226056] Merge Review: libvorbis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081712.l18HCwi2009549@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libvorbis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226056 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|besfahbo at redhat.com |bdpepple at ameritech.net Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-08 12:12 EST ------- * Thu Feb 8 2007 Matthias Clasen - 1:1.1.2-2 - Package review cleanups - Don't ship static libraries -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 17:18:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:18:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081718.l18HIYdd009974@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-08 12:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #2) > > * License > > added LICENSE (GPLv2) > btw, quicklz is licensed under the GPL, so that shouldn't be a problem. I think we could probably use something along the lines of a README that includes a bit stating that you're the author of the bulk of the code, with a reference stating where the codec.c bit came from and that it is also GPL, just to cover all the bases. > > > > * Timestamps > > No reason to add '-p' when installing seom.pc, because that file is > auto-generated. But I added '-p' when installing the headers.. Ah, true. > -$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -L.libs -o $@ src/$@/main.c -lseom $($@LIBS) > +$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(EXTRA_CFLAGS) $(INCLUDES) $(LDFLAGS) -L.libs -o seom-$@ > src/$@/main.c -lseom $($@LIBS) > > 'seom-$@' is ok in the srpm, but when compiling seom from sources more than once > it's bad because then make will recompile the apps every time make is executed.. I'll drop that part of my patch. > and, what's wrong with 'libtool --mode=install'? For Fedora packages, libtool archives and static libs are forbidden, so it was solely for the benefit of the package. I'll use a patch that doesn't nuke that, and will instead remove the file from within the spec. Other notes on the patch I'm using: - splitting CFLAGS and EXTRA_CFLAGS makes packaging much easier. Fedora has a standard set of CFLAGS that are supposed to be used on all packages, so splitting off the -std=c99 bit into EXTRA_CFLAGS makes life easier, since its required, but not part of the standard Fedora CFLAGS. - some of the added $(*DIR) bits are for convenience more than anything, but are fairly standard. - you've got lots of extraneous slashes -- $(DESTDIR)/$(PREFIX) works out to /somewhere//usr -- so I nuke all those. - I need/want the shared libs, they're greatly preferred over static libs and/or libtool archives in the Fedora world. Updated build: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/seom/seom-1.0-0.3.161.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 17:25:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:25:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081725.l18HPifi010589@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From caillon at redhat.com 2007-02-08 12:25 EST ------- Then please bring it up. The source URL can be derived by going to the website given in the URL field, and in some cases, notably such as with the mozilla sources, I get them many times before they are posted publicly (for security releases) so cannot say with 100% certainty what the actual Source URL will be at build time for my packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 17:28:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:28:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081728.l18HSECm010865@bugzilla.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: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 12:28 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > * compiler flags > - does not pass fedora specific compilation flags. Well, i did pass it, but the cmake stuff refused to use it, will check if I can force it to. > > * conditional dependency > - Check: > ------------------------------------------ > -- Xerces-C was not found. > ------------------------------------------ Must have missed this one, will fix. > > * desktop file > - /usr/bin/strigiclient seems to be a GUI program > and desktop file for this program should be added, > perhaps. No, there's a separate package (stigiapplet), that provides GUI support for strigi as an applet. It is also integrated with konqueror and can thus optionally be used from it (using some form of strigi:// protocol) > > * File location > - All header files under /usr/include in -devel package > should be moved to %{_includedir}/%{name}. From I > checked the #include entry, this is no problem and > putting header files directly under /usr/include should > be avoied. I don't really understand what you're saying here, but i get the idea, will look into fixing it. > * Dependency > - Check the dependency for -devel package. I have never > checked the header files for Qt4 package. However, > /usr/include/strigi/qtdbus/strigidbus.h includes: > --------------------------------------------- > #include > --------------------------------------------- Strigi also optionally depends on dbus-qt; but at the time I first packaged and put it up, dbus-qt was not available in fedora (devel) repo. Now that it (dbus-qt) is available, I'll consider adding it as buildrequire. > This means that -devel package should require > some Qt4 related packages. > -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 17:37:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:37:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225745] Merge Review: fedora-logos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081737.l18HbOab011602@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-logos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225745 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-08 12:37 EST ------- So, whats the next step here ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 17:37:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081737.l18HbM7Z011589@bugzilla.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: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-08 12:37 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > > * desktop file > > - /usr/bin/strigiclient seems to be a GUI program > > and desktop file for this program should be added, > > perhaps. > No, there's a separate package (stigiapplet), that provides GUI support for > strigi as an applet. It is also integrated with konqueror and can thus > optionally be used from it (using some form of strigi:// protocol) Well, I know that you are thinking of KDE. And I am thinking of GNOME, actually. When I check KDE application, I also check if this can be used for GNOME and, for this package it can be used in GNOME as far as I tried (well, I want to use KDE application on GNOME usually!!) So I think the desktop for this package should be added for GNOME user. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 17:39:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:39:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081739.l18Hd51Y011722@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments From bnocera at redhat.com 2007-02-08 12:39 EST ------- I've made some local changes, but the gist of it is that we need to force a new libtool in the tarball to get rid of the rpath warnings. As for the scrollkeeper bits, we'll need to remove them ourselves from the omf.make as well, as gnome-media doesn't use gnome-doc-utils, which provides and respects the --disable-scrollkeeper argument: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405821 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 17:47:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:47:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081747.l18Hl02r012161@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-08 12:46 EST ------- - rpmlint output: W: php invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes php-dbg W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes php3 W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes phpfi W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes stronghold-php W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-pcntl W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-readline W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-bz2 W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-calendar W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-ctype W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-curl W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-date W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-exif W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-ftp W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-gettext W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-gmp W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-hash W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-iconv W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-libxml W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-mime_magic W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-openssl W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-pcre W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-posix W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-pspell W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-reflection W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-session W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-shmop W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-simplexml W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-sockets W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-spl W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-sysvsem W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-sysvshm W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-sysvmsg W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-tokenizer W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-wddx W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-zlib W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-json W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-zip W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes php-openssl W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes php-pecl-zip W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes php-json W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes php-pecl-pdo-devel W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes mod_php3-imap W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes stronghold-php-imap W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes mod_php3-ldap W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes stronghold-php-ldap W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes php-pecl-pdo-sqlite W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes php-pecl-pdo W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php_database W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-mysqli W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes mod_php3-mysql W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes stronghold-php-mysql W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php_database W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes mod_php3-pgsql W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes stronghold-php-pgsql W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php_database W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes stronghold-php-odbc W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes php-domxml W: php unversioned-explicit-obsoletes php-dom W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-dom W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-xsl W: php unversioned-explicit-provides php-domxml E: php use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR W: php mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 326, tab: line 344) W: php invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 E: php obsolete-not-provided php-dbg E: php obsolete-not-provided php3 E: php obsolete-not-provided phpfi E: php obsolete-not-provided stronghold-php W: php no-documentation E: php non-standard-gid /var/lib/php/session apache E: php non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/php/session 0770 W: php-bcmath invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-bcmath no-documentation W: php-cli invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-common invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 E: php-common obsolete-not-provided php-pecl-zip W: php-dba invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-dba no-documentation W: php-debuginfo invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/mbstring/libmbfl/filters/mbfilter_iso8859_16.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_mysql/mysql_driver.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/mbstring/libmbfl/filters/mbfilter_iso8859_16.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo/php_pdo_int.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo/pdo.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_exceptions.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/php_spl.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo/pdo_dbh.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/main/streams/streams.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_functions.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_mysql/mysql_statement.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo/php_pdo_driver.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/Zend/zend_iterators.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/Zend/zend_iterators.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/main/php_streams.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_odbc/odbc_driver.c E: php-debuginfo wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_odbc/odbc_driver.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_odbc/php_pdo_odbc_int.h E: php-debuginfo wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_odbc/php_pdo_odbc_int.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_array.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_array.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_directory.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_directory.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_exceptions.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/php_spl.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_observer.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_observer.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_iterators.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/simplexml/php_simplexml_exports.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_iterators.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_engine.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_odbc/pdo_odbc.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_mysql/php_pdo_mysql_int.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo/pdo_stmt.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_mysql/pdo_mysql.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo/php_pdo.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_odbc/odbc_stmt.c E: php-debuginfo wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pdo_odbc/odbc_stmt.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/mbstring/oniguruma/regext.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/Zend/zend_interfaces.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/Zend/zend_interfaces.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_sxe.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_sxe.h W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/pcntl/pcntl.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/mbstring/oniguruma/enc/utf16_be.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/mbstring/oniguruma/enc/utf16_le.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/spl/spl_engine.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/mbstring/oniguruma/enc/utf32_be.c W: php-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/php-5.2.0/ext/mbstring/oniguruma/enc/utf32_le.c W: php-devel invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 E: php-devel obsolete-not-provided php-pecl-pdo-devel E: php-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: php-devel conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rpm/macros.php W: php-gd invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-gd no-documentation W: php-imap invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 E: php-imap obsolete-not-provided mod_php3-imap E: php-imap obsolete-not-provided stronghold-php-imap W: php-imap no-documentation W: php-ldap invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 E: php-ldap obsolete-not-provided mod_php3-ldap E: php-ldap obsolete-not-provided stronghold-php-ldap W: php-ldap no-documentation W: php-mbstring invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-mbstring no-documentation W: php-mysql invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 E: php-mysql obsolete-not-provided mod_php3-mysql E: php-mysql obsolete-not-provided stronghold-php-mysql W: php-mysql no-documentation W: php-ncurses invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-ncurses no-documentation W: php-odbc invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 E: php-odbc obsolete-not-provided stronghold-php-odbc W: php-odbc no-documentation W: php-pdo invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 E: php-pdo obsolete-not-provided php-pecl-pdo-sqlite E: php-pdo obsolete-not-provided php-pecl-pdo W: php-pdo no-documentation W: php-pgsql invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 E: php-pgsql obsolete-not-provided mod_php3-pgsql E: php-pgsql obsolete-not-provided stronghold-php-pgsql W: php-pgsql no-documentation W: php-snmp invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-snmp no-documentation W: php-soap invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-soap no-documentation W: php-xml invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-xml no-documentation W: php-xmlrpc invalid-license The PHP License v3.01 W: php-xmlrpc no-documentation Oh my, thats a lot! heh. Any chance we can clean these up? Looks like most of these are pretty trivial to fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 17:54:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:54:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081754.l18HsorG013176@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From tom at dbservice.com 2007-02-08 12:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > I think we could probably use something along the lines of a README that > includes a bit stating that you're the author of the bulk of the code, with a > reference stating where the codec.c bit came from and that it is also GPL, just > to cover all the bases. > will do ... I'll drop you an email as soon as a new tarball is available. > For Fedora packages, libtool archives and static libs are forbidden, so it was > solely for the benefit of the package. I'll use a patch that doesn't nuke that, > and will instead remove the file from within the spec. I would actually love to drop libtool, but it's a nice tool that adds '-fPIC' when needed (and other arch-dependent flags). But other than that, I find it horrible (what are these libtool archives for anyway? The compiler doesn't need them when linking against the library, right?). > > Other notes on the patch I'm using: > - splitting CFLAGS and EXTRA_CFLAGS makes packaging much easier. Fedora has a > standard set of CFLAGS that are supposed to be used on all packages, so > splitting off the -std=c99 bit into EXTRA_CFLAGS makes life easier, since its > required, but not part of the standard Fedora CFLAGS. What about 'CFLAGS += ...' in the Makefile and a configure option --cflags, would that work for you? > - some of the added $(*DIR) bits are for convenience more than anything, but are > fairly standard. One thing that still bothers be is my use of LIBDIR. I know it's non-standard, but I find it much more convenient when cross-compiling, because I only have to set LIBDIR='lib' or 'lib32' and not LIBDIR='$PREFIX/lib'. I also don't really see a use in installing the libs, apps and headers each into a different prefix. I'm hard to convince, I admit, but my decisions are rarely set in stone, so I'm sure if you give me strong, good reasons I may change my use of LIBDIR ;) > - you've got lots of extraneous slashes -- $(DESTDIR)/$(PREFIX) works out to > /somewhere//usr -- so I nuke all those. Yeah, I noticed that, too, but i don't care because it's just a cosmetic change, or isn't it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:02:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:02:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081802.l18I2Ieh013862@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gcc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778 ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-08 13:02 EST ------- We've had some initial conversations on #fedora-packaging which is leading to these thoughts: 1) The original reason for the guideline was to prevent foo-1.0.tar.gz => bar.spec. 2) Preserving history is a perfectly valid wish. 3) comparing two versions of the spec could be done with the SCM's diff command: cvs diff -u -r qa-assistant-0_4_1-4_fc5 -r HEAD qa-assistant.spec for instance. So my current thought on a proposal is: ''' The spec file should be named using the %{name}.spec scheme. This is to make it easier for people to find the appropriate spec when they install a src.rpm. Example: If your package is named foo-1.0.0-1.src.rpm, then the spec file should be named foo.spec. There is no need to include the %{version} in the spec file name. If you are packaging multiple versions of a package for simultaneous use, they should already reflect the version in the %{name}.spec scheme (refer to Multiple Packages with the same base name for details). In normal cases adding the version can cause the spec file's history to be lost when a package's version is upgraded. As a special exception, there are a few packages which are allowed to have a version in their spec filename. This is because they had the version in their name when they were merged from Fedora Core's cvs and removing the version at that time would *lose* history: * gcc * [Please ask the packaging committee to add your package if you think it should fall under this exception as well.] This exception will go away when any of the following criteria are met: 1) We move the packages to a revision control system which is able to preserve history across a file rename. 2) The package spec file is going to be renamed anyway (for example, gcc41.spec is imported into cvs. When gcc is upgraded to gcc-4.2, the new spec will be created as gcc.spec) ''' This text will appear on: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines and be linked from: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines Let me know if this addresses your concerns or if you have some ideas to make it better. I'll post it to fedora-packaging later today if you have no objections. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:07:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:07:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081807.l18I75uj014488@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-08 13:06 EST ------- Just a question: Should I wait this review until a new tarball is released? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:07:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:07:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081807.l18I7BCU014513@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-08 13:07 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS. + source files match upstream. + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is LGPL matched with COPYING file entry. + %doc is right (NEWS can be dropped from this field). + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + post ans postun is correctly set. + python_sitelib present. + Macro use appears rather consistent. (just use %{name}insted of gimmie + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. ------- I can approved it cause i'm not a sponsor. You should think about adding a desktop entry for this app. ------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:07:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:07:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081807.l18I7ijn014564@bugzilla.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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 ------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com 2007-02-08 13:07 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147683) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147683&action=view) vtk.spec version 14 with changes noted in comment Some comments: - With cmake projects, I like to do: make VERBOSE=1 %{?_smp_mflags} to see the compile command lines. Helps with debugging builds. Produces copious output though. - Are there really cmakes < 2.0.4 out there in the wild? - You can use DESTDIR with the cmakes in Fedora. - Usually you do out of tree builds with cmake. - Why not build Java, Qt Designer, GL2PS, and with OSMesa support? OSMesa isn't avail in FC5 but is in FC6, though it may be buggy. - I find all the automatic generating of file lists confusing and prone to problems, but it's a matter of taste. - I'd like to get the test suite run with ctest, but it currently tries to run tests that need a display. You can turn that off with VTK_USE_DISPLAY=OFF, but then the tests/examples are not built and so cannot be installed in the examples subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:16:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081816.l18IGpdD015654@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-08 13:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > ------- > I can approved it cause i'm not a sponsor. > Thanks for the review. Of course you don't have to be a sponsor to approve a package, but you have to be in the fedorabug group in the Fedora accounts setup. You should also take a look at the review procedures at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewGuidelines. Parag AN has already assigned this review to himself. > You should think about adding a desktop entry for this app. gimmie works as an applet that can be added to the panel. > > ------- > -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:21:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:21:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] New: Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client 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=227873 Summary: Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: wart at kobold.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-media.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-media-0.6-1.src.rpm Description: Media files for the sear WorldForge client. Note to reviewer: The dist tag is intentionally not used as this is a large noarch blob of game data that doesn't need to be rebuilt, only copied, between fedora releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:22:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:22:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081822.l18IMR71016472@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |198839 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:22:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:22:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081822.l18IMSPn016484@bugzilla.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: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |227873 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:26:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225863] Merge Review: gsl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081826.l18IQmDZ017100@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gsl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225863 jamatos at fc.up.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jamatos at fc.up.pt 2007-02-08 13:26 EST ------- Another small nit, gsl should not require /sbin/install-info, instead that requirement should pass to -devel: Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info Is there any reason to distribute the .la version in gsl? The case can be made for the .a's libraries, but the rules are very clear concerning the libtool archives: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:26:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:26:47 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225863] Merge Review: gsl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081826.l18IQlRd017096@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225863: Merge Review: gsl Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jos???? Matos has denied Jos???? Matos 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225863 ------- Additional Comments from Jos???? Matos Another small nit, gsl should not require /sbin/install-info, instead that requirement should pass to -devel: Requires(post): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info Is there any reason to distribute the .la version in gsl? The case can be made for the .a's libraries, but the rules are very clear concerning the libtool archives: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcc e24cb711266557ad7 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:27:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:27:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226432] Merge Review: squirrelmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081827.l18IRkWs017293@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: squirrelmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226432 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-08 13:27 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 224245 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:27:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:27:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224245] Merge Review: squirrelmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081827.l18IRmGt017314@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: squirrelmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224245 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nobody at fedoraproject.org ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-08 13:27 EST ------- *** Bug 226432 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:50:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:50:13 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081850.l18IoD5O019441@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 227811: Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review manuel wolfshant has granted manuel wolfshant 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 ------- Additional Comments from manuel wolfshant Caolan: I am willing to work with you through all dictionaries. Quick review for this package: - unzip is not needed as BR because it's on the exception list (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FullExceptionList) - adding -q to the %setup line and an empty %build would silence rpmlint (see below) Everything else seems fine - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum fa0dfbe45efd7eeba04e069f2e5987b721ebae71 af_ZA-pack.zip - the package builds in mock, devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license LGPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - MINOR: unneeded BR: unzip - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output: on source: W: hunspell-af setup-not-quiet W: hunspell-af no-%build-section on binary: silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just a 31K text file - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file The package is APPROVED but before comitting to CVS please fix the three small problems mentioned in the first paragraph. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 18:50:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:50:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081850.l18IoP21019471@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-08 13:50 EST ------- Caolan: I am willing to work with you through all dictionaries. Quick review for this package: - unzip is not needed as BR because it's on the exception list (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FullExceptionList) - adding -q to the %setup line and an empty %build would silence rpmlint (see below) Everything else seems fine - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum fa0dfbe45efd7eeba04e069f2e5987b721ebae71 af_ZA-pack.zip - the package builds in mock, devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license LGPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - MINOR: unneeded BR: unzip - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output: on source: W: hunspell-af setup-not-quiet W: hunspell-af no-%build-section on binary: silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just a 31K text file - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file The package is APPROVED but before comitting to CVS please fix the three small problems mentioned in the first paragraph. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 19:05:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:05:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081905.l18J5MhK020860@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-08 14:05 EST ------- Well, * Timestamps - Keep timestamps. i.e. Use "cp -p" * By the way, some reason you don't want to use %?dist tag? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 19:08:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:08:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081908.l18J8qVC021061@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-08 14:08 EST ------- Damn, I missed those :( Mamoru, thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 19:13:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:13:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081913.l18JDPQf021325@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: avalon-logkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 19:37:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:37:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081937.l18Jbcnw024043@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-08 14:37 EST ------- * Missing empty %build section. * Added value in the %install loop would be to %lang'ify the files via a file-list and by copying the Locale identifier from the file names, like "%lang(af_ZA) foobar". That depends a bit on the future of %lang in RPM and in related package tools, however. I've seen it in several packages, e.g. kphotoalbum. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 19:39:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:39:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081939.l18JdVs1024261@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 ------- Additional Comments From michael_e_brown at dell.com 2007-02-08 14:39 EST ------- Changes included in libsmbios 0.10.2. Will post new spec/srpm shortly and update bugzilla. - Fixed ExlusiveArch %{ix86} - fixed permissions - removed *.la files - added Provides: for Obsoletes: - fixed -libs summary - added boost license file to -devel - added getopts license to all %docs - fixed speling erors -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 19:48:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081948.l18Jmm4C025295@bugzilla.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: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 ------- Additional Comments From mattdm at mattdm.org 2007-02-08 14:48 EST ------- Okay, updated without readline: Spec URL: http://mattdm.org/misc/fedoraextras/calc.spec SRPM URL: http://mattdm.org/misc/fedoraextras/calc-2.12.1.8-2.fc7.mattdm.src.rpm There's another possible license issue here, with the license of the included md5.c file: /* *********************************************************************** ** Copyright (C) 1990, RSA Data Security, Inc. All rights reserved. ** ** ** ** License to copy and use this software is granted provided that ** ** it is identified as the "RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message- ** ** Digest Algorithm" in all material mentioning or referencing this ** ** software or this function. ** ** ** ** License is also granted to make and use derivative works ** ** provided that such works are identified as "derived from the RSA ** ** Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm" in all ** ** material mentioning or referencing the derived work. ** ** ** ** RSA Data Security, Inc. makes no representations concerning ** ** either the merchantability of this software or the suitability ** ** of this software for any particular purpose. It is provided "as ** ** is" without express or implied warranty of any kind. ** ** ** ** These notices must be retained in any copies of any part of this ** ** documentation and/or software. ** *********************************************************************** */ which is basically like the BSD license except the wording about "all material mentioning or referencing" is a bit stronger than the BSD license's "in the documentation and/or other materials" phrase. Honestly, I'm a little bit fuzzy on why the 3-clause BSD license is GPL-compatible but the 4-clause one isn't, and which category this falls into. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 19:51:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:51:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225863] Merge Review: gsl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081951.l18JpaUW025695@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gsl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225863 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-08 14:51 EST ------- static libs are very useful in math packages. The static libs may be in a separate -static package, though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 19:51:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:51:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226035] Merge Review: libogg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702081951.l18Jpv5Z025755@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libogg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226035 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-08 14:51 EST ------- It's pretty much the same issue as pkgconfig files; you can't own the directory they go in, so you must have a dependency on the package that does. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 20:04:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:04:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] Review Request: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082004.l18K4XUu027122@bugzilla.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: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-08 15:04 EST ------- Please rename this package to gnu-trove (i.e., replace the '.' in the name with a '-'). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 20:11:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:11:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082011.l18KBrh8027927@bugzilla.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: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 ------- Additional Comments From mattdm at mattdm.org 2007-02-08 15:11 EST ------- Oh, wait, it's worse than that. Ahh, licensing is such joy. See this discussion regarding a similar problem in apr-utils. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/200610.mbox/%3c87y7rpw8g3.fsf at thosu.err.no%3e -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 20:13:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:13:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082013.l18KDUWW028166@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-08 15:13 EST ------- The simple-minded approach to the scrollkeeper problem is to just rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/scrollkeeper in %build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 20:15:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:15:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082015.l18KFdjg028373@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libpng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038 tgl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From tgl at redhat.com 2007-02-08 15:15 EST ------- Thanks for the review --- all those points are good. As for the question about the static library, I'm not sure what to do. The previous package owner of libjpeg dropped its static library and there's been a bunch of push-back about that, which makes me wary of doing it to libpng. Perhaps a sub-package is the answer; is there any precedent for that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 20:34:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:34:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082034.l18KYoFN030490@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libpng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-08 15:34 EST ------- See also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage recommendation is to package it separately, something like libpng-static -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 20:37:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:37:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082037.l18KbUZ5030999@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-08 15:37 EST ------- updated spec and srpm with setup -q, cp -p, %?dist, removed BR unzip and added an empty %build. I'd rather not set %lang on the files as they're dictionaries rather than documentation or translations, I'm not comfortable that it fits perfectly conceptually to mark dicts that way as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 20:37:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:37:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225819] Merge Review: gnome-keyring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082037.l18KbWN4031024@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-keyring https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225819 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-08 15:37 EST ------- * Thu Feb 8 2007 Matthias Clasen - 0.7.3-2 - Package review cleanup -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 20:41:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:41:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225820] Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082041.l18KfbPn031682@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-keyring-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225820 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-08 15:41 EST ------- * Thu Feb 8 2007 Matthias Clasen - 2.17.0-2 - Package review cleanup -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:25:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:25:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226104] Merge Review: logrotate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082125.l18LPowK004457@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logrotate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226104 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-08 16:25 EST ------- >> No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag. > There isn't any URL you can download sources from. RH is upstream for logrotate. Agreed. >> Use DESTDIR instead of PREFIX in %install > I can't use DESTDIR, since there isn't standart Makefile in logrotate. Ok. >> Is it necessary to create the empty logrotate.status? > bz #55809 Ok, I'm not sure this is a bug, but is doesn't do any harm either. One thing left: you haven't converted all paths to macro's There's /etc in %install, replace that with %{_sysconfdir} Replace /var with %{_localstatedir} Thanks, Ruben -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:29:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:29:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208678] Review Request: SimGear - Simulation library components In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082129.l18LTBDk004656@bugzilla.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: SimGear - Simulation library components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208678 ------- Additional Comments From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com 2007-02-08 16:29 EST ------- Hmm, Spot. Have you brought SimGear into the repository? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:30:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:30:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082130.l18LUImI004742@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:30:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:30:17 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082130.l18LUH71004733@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226436: Merge Review: statserial Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review manuel wolfshant has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:43:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:43:32 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082143.l18LhWQO005989@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226436: Merge Review: statserial Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review manuel wolfshant has denied manuel wolfshant 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 ------- Additional Comments from manuel wolfshant - there is no URL tag; please provide one if possible - Package is marked as relocatable; since is a no-no (unless properly documented and justified), PREFIX should disappear - BuildRoot does not have the preferred value - Release tag should include %{dist} - %build does not honor $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - %build should use SMP flags. If it doesn't work, please add a comment - the dot at the end of Summary should be removed - the tar.gz includes the GPL v2 license, but the package claims license to be BSD; - the license file (COPYING) should be included in the binary rpm - I suggest including the provided phone_log script as %doc From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:43:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082143.l18LhnBr006038@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147314|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2007-02-08 16:43 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147701) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147701&action=view) Reviewed perl spec file This spec file is the one I am doing the review against. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:43:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:43:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082143.l18LhiKn006023@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro |twaugh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-08 16:43 EST ------- - there is no URL tag; please provide one if possible - Package is marked as relocatable; since is a no-no (unless properly documented and justified), PREFIX should disappear - BuildRoot does not have the preferred value - Release tag should include %{dist} - %build does not honor $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - %build should use SMP flags. If it doesn't work, please add a comment - the dot at the end of Summary should be removed - the tar.gz includes the GPL v2 license, but the package claims license to be BSD; - the license file (COPYING) should be included in the binary rpm - I suggest including the provided phone_log script as %doc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:49:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:49:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227309] Review Request: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082149.l18Lnx5X006267@bugzilla.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: seom - Desktop video capture and playback utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227309 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-08 16:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > will do ... I'll drop you an email as soon as a new tarball is available. Excellent, thank you. > > For Fedora packages, libtool archives and static libs are forbidden, so it was > > solely for the benefit of the package. I'll use a patch that doesn't nuke that, > > and will instead remove the file from within the spec. > > I would actually love to drop libtool, but it's a nice tool that adds '-fPIC' > when needed (and other arch-dependent flags). But other than that, I find it > horrible (what are these libtool archives for anyway? The compiler doesn't need > them when linking against the library, right?). I must admit to knowing very little about libtool or ways to replace it... > > Other notes on the patch I'm using: > > - splitting CFLAGS and EXTRA_CFLAGS makes packaging much easier. Fedora has a > > standard set of CFLAGS that are supposed to be used on all packages, so > > splitting off the -std=c99 bit into EXTRA_CFLAGS makes life easier, since its > > required, but not part of the standard Fedora CFLAGS. > > What about 'CFLAGS += ...' in the Makefile and a configure option --cflags, > would that work for you? I think a CFLAGS += might work, but the preferred way to get our CFLAGS into a build is via an export, preferrably the one done by the %configure macro (which also passes in libdir, bindir, sbindir, etc. info, which is part of why I was dropping the additional *DIR bits into the Makefile). > > - some of the added $(*DIR) bits are for convenience more than anything, but are > > fairly standard. > > One thing that still bothers be is my use of LIBDIR. I know it's non-standard, > but I find it much more convenient when cross-compiling, because I only have to > set LIBDIR='lib' or 'lib32' and not LIBDIR='$PREFIX/lib'. I also don't really > see a use in installing the libs, apps and headers each into a different prefix. Nah, we'd never install those bits in different prefixes either. This again goes back to the %configure macro, which passes in a full path for LIBDIR. We never touch LIB though, so I added that to add support for doing essentially what you're doing w/LIBDIR at the moment. I could be missing something, but I though that change would still allow you to build and install as you have been by passing LIB='lib' or 'lib32'. > I'm hard to convince, I admit, but my decisions are rarely set in stone, so I'm > sure if you give me strong, good reasons I may change my use of LIBDIR ;) Hope the above helped... :) > > - you've got lots of extraneous slashes -- $(DESTDIR)/$(PREFIX) works out to > > /somewhere//usr -- so I nuke all those. > > Yeah, I noticed that, too, but i don't care because it's just a cosmetic change, > or isn't it? Mostly cosmetic, but also the right thing to do. :) (In reply to comment #15) > Just a question: > > Should I wait this review until a new tarball is released? Might as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:59:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:59:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082159.l18Lx2C4006880@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2007-02-08 16:58 EST ------- Review: This review is against the attached spec file (id=147701). I rewrote the spec file, cleaning up lots of ancient cruft. Good: - rpmlint checks return: W: perl devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/DynaLoader/DynaLoader.a (should be safe to ignore, I'm pretty sure the base perl needs this) W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6/i386-linux-thread-multi W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7/i386-linux-thread-multi W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.6 W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.7 W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.5 W: perl siteperl-in-perl-module /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8 Since this is perl, not a perl-module, these are all safe to ignore. W: perl-devel no-documentation W: perl-suidperl no-documentation Safe to ignore. E: perl-suidperl setuid-binary /usr/bin/sperl5.8.8 root 04711 E: perl-suidperl non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/sperl5.8.8 04711 E: perl-suidperl non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/sperl5.8.8 04711 Since this is suidperl, it will be setuid and have non-standard permissions. Safe to ignore. W: perl strange-permission filter-depends.sh 0775 Safe to ignore. W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(VMS::Filespec) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(VMS::Stdio) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.5) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.6) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.7) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:WITH_ITHREADS) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:WITH_THREADS) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:WITH_LARGEFILES) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(:WITH_PERLIO) These provides don't merit versions, IMHO. Safe to ignore. W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(abbrev.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(assert.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(bigfloat.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(bigint.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(bigrat.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(bytes_heavy.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(cacheout.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(complete.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(ctime.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(dotsh.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(dumpvar.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(exceptions.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(fastcwd.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(find.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(finddepth.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(flush.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(ftp.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(getcwd.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(getopt.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(getopts.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(hostname.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(importenv.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(look.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(newgetopt.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(open2.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(open3.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(perl5db.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(pwd.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(shellwords.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(stat.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(syslog.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(tainted.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(termcap.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(timelocal.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(utf8_heavy.pl) W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(validate.pl) These are all "file" provides. They don't have real versions, per se. IMHO, safe to ignore. W: perl unversioned-explicit-provides perl(Carp::Heavy) Same as above, no real versioning here. Safe to ignore W: perl unversioned-explicit-obsoletes perl-Filter-Simple W: perl unversioned-explicit-obsoletes perl-Time-HiRes These obsoletes were last seen in FC-4. The perl package has versioned provides. Safe to ignore, IMHO. W: perl patch-not-applied Patch39: perl-5.8.8-bz204679.patch This patch isn't done yet. That's why its not applied. The spec file is marked to reflect this. Safe to ignore. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (Artistic or GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - %check ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - devel requires base package n-v-r - debuginfo package has valid content Please make sure you're comfortable with this new packaging spec file, and if so, commit it, build it in rawhide. Once that's done, I'll approve this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:59:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:59:31 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082159.l18LxVBa006927@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226276: Merge Review: perl Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Tom "spot" Callaway has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 21:59:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:59:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082159.l18LxWc1006935@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 22:24:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:24:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082224.l18MOc84009456@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-08 17:24 EST ------- Hi Peter, About the timestamps, the line install -c -p -m 0644 %{SOURCE1} ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_mandir}/man1 is redundant, make install already does this, so it can be removed. test -z "/bin" || mkdir -p -- "/var/tmp/cpio-2.6-25.fc6-root-mockbuild/bin" /usr/bin/install -c 'cpio' '/var/tmp/cpio-2.6-25.fc6-root-mockbuild/bin/cpio' So cpio is installed without preserving the timestamp. And a new rpmlint error: Source RPM: W: cpio mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 86) I've attached a patch with the fixes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 22:33:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:33:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082233.l18MXQCE010234@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-08 17:33 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147709) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147709&action=view) Fix timestamps -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 22:56:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:56:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227933] New: Review Request: libproj4 - Cartographic projection library 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=227933 Summary: Review Request: libproj4 - Cartographic projection library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: orion at cora.nwra.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec Name or Url: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/libproj4.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/libproj4-050319-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: This library supports over 170 projections including many used in national grid systems. Many more projections are available by selection of appropriate values for control parameters of current base projections. Circa 2002 the libproj4 system is an outgrowth of the author's PROJ.4 system and corrected inconsistencies of the old system and improved overall operation. It also ensured that identifier namespace became restricted to PJ_*/pj_*. The old PROJ.4 system is still available at some web sites such as Remote Sensing Organization site. The web sites associated with PROJ.4 may have performed their own modification to the PROJ.4 library so there is no guarantee of the same collection of projections nor functional equivalence. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 22:59:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:59:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082259.l18MxxT3011518@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-08 17:59 EST ------- I had already tested with empty ~/.emacs and ~/.emacs.d too, and I don't think I've ever had psgml installed. Pretty much all *.xml, *.xsl, *.xhtml files open in XML/XHTML modes, not nxml here; I don't have an explanation to that, but it does happen. I do remember getting some XML files opened in nxml-mode in earlier tests, but can't find one at the moment. And you're right, SGML/HTML would probably be better off handled by SGML based modes, not nxml - I doubt it is even supposed to work with those. The confusion with getting files to consistently open with or without nxml-mode is the only remaining blocker here as far as I'm concerned - if you have ideas what to try, let me know. Everything *looks* correct as far as I can tell (eg. value of auto-mode-alist at runtime). BTW, the last trailing ".1" could be dropped from the Version tag, but no need to roll a new package for review just because of that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:02:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:02:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 189010] Review Request: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082302.l18N2XkF011694@bugzilla.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: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189010 orion at cora.nwra.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(orion at cora.nwra.co| |m) | ------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com 2007-02-08 18:02 EST ------- Are you still around? The urls above no longer work. Also looks like pybaz has moved to http://code.aaronbentley.com/pybaz/ and 1.5.2 has been released. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:05:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:05:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082305.l18N5WM6011866@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-08 18:05 EST ------- I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:06:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:06:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082306.l18N6enw011959@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-08 18:06 EST ------- I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:06:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:06:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082306.l18N6xbB012047@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: avalon-logkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com CC| |pcheung at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-08 18:06 EST ------- I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:20:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:20:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082320.l18NKXKF012520@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 bnocera at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From bnocera at redhat.com 2007-02-08 18:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > The simple-minded approach to the scrollkeeper problem is to just > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/scrollkeeper in %build. Actually, it tries to update the database in /var/scrollkeeper, not $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/scrollkeeper... It's all built in gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:27:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:27:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082327.l18NRZFw012809@bugzilla.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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-08 18:27 EST ------- What java did you use? $ grep /usr/lib/jvm/java vtk.spec.orion export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java $ rpm -q gcc-java libgcj-devel libgcj gcc-java-4.1.1-51.fc6 libgcj-devel-4.1.1-51.fc6 libgcj-4.1.1-51.fc6 libgcj-4.1.1-51.fc6 $ rpm -ql gcc-java libgcj-devel libgcj | grep -E '/usr/lib.*/jvm/java($/)' $ ls -l /usr/lib*/jvm/java ls: /usr/lib*/jvm/java: No such file or directory -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:43:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:43:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082343.l18NhWi9013287@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk 2007-02-08 18:43 EST ------- I can't do that at the moment I'm afraid, however if you file a bug upstream I should imagine it will be fixed fairly quickly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:50:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:50:54 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082350.l18NosiU013426@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 227631: Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Orion Poplawski has denied Orion Poplawski 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ------- Additional Comments from Orion Poplawski Some of these are minor, but does bring about a nice consistency to the spec files. - rpmlint checks return: W: autofs no-url-tag Is there any? W: autofs unversioned-explicit-obsoletes autofs-ldap The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. W: autofs macro-in-%changelog _xxx Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. W: autofs mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 481, tab: line 102) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. - Why define %version and %release? Aren't they are defined automatically? - Consider Requires: chkconfig rather than Requires: /sbin/chkconfig, easier on the depsolvers and unlikely to change. Similar for /bin/bash, others. - %clean should just be: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - exit 0 in %preun seems unneeded. - %defattr should be: %defattr(-,root,root,-) - There's an empty %doc line. - Still need to ship %dir /misc? You don't with /net. - This: %dir %{_libdir}/autofs %{_libdir}/autofs/* could be: %{_libdir}/autofs/ Good: - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file * From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:50:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:50:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082350.l18NotjR013440@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 orion at cora.nwra.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |fedora-review-, | |needinfo?(ikent at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com 2007-02-08 18:50 EST ------- Some of these are minor, but does bring about a nice consistency to the spec files. - rpmlint checks return: W: autofs no-url-tag Is there any? W: autofs unversioned-explicit-obsoletes autofs-ldap The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. W: autofs macro-in-%changelog _xxx Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. W: autofs mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 481, tab: line 102) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. - Why define %version and %release? Aren't they are defined automatically? - Consider Requires: chkconfig rather than Requires: /sbin/chkconfig, easier on the depsolvers and unlikely to change. Similar for /bin/bash, others. - %clean should just be: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - exit 0 in %preun seems unneeded. - %defattr should be: %defattr(-,root,root,-) - There's an empty %doc line. - Still need to ship %dir /misc? You don't with /net. - This: %dir %{_libdir}/autofs %{_libdir}/autofs/* could be: %{_libdir}/autofs/ Good: - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file * -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:55:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 189010] Review Request: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082355.l18Nt1cR013555@bugzilla.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: pybaz - Python library bindings for the GNU Arch/Bazaar RCS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189010 ------- Additional Comments From shahms at shahms.com 2007-02-08 18:54 EST ------- Somewhat. Since posting those files I've changed jobs once and cities twice; I'm currently in the process of getting Internet access again, which should happen next Thursday if all goes to plan. As the files were hosted on my workstation at my previous employer and my current employer probably wouldn't be terribly happy about hosting them, I'll have to wait before I can put them up at a new URL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 8 23:55:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:55:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702082355.l18Ntmx7013589@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 orion at cora.nwra.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |orion at cora.nwra.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com 2007-02-08 18:55 EST ------- - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source Ian - shouldn't we be reviewing from CVS? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 00:03:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199405] Review Request: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090003.l1903Qmu013845@bugzilla.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: vtk - The Visualization Toolkit - A high level 3D visualization library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199405 ------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com 2007-02-08 19:03 EST ------- [root at cynosure log]# ls -l /usr/lib/jvm/java lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 26 Jan 23 10:20 /usr/lib/jvm/java -> /etc/alternatives/java_sdk [root at cynosure log]# ls -l /etc/alternatives/java_sdk lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 Jan 23 10:20 /etc/alternatives/java_sdk -> /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj [root at cynosure log]# rpm -qf /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-devel-1.4.2.0-40jpp.110 [root at cynosure log]# rpm -q --provides java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-devel-1.4.2.0-40jpp.110 java-1.4.2-devel java-devel = 1.4.2 java-devel-gcj = 0:1.4.2.0 java-gcj-compat-devel = 1.0.68 java-sdk = 1.4.2 java-sdk-1.4.2 java-sdk-1.4.2-gcj = 0:1.4.2.0 java-sdk-gcj = 0:1.4.2.0 java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-devel = 0:1.4.2.0-40jpp.110 So the BR: should probably be "java-devel" rather than gcc-java. Or you might be able to use a different JAVA_HOME, but I think you're stuck using versioned directories if you do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 00:39:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:39:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227946] New: Review Request: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT 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=227946 Summary: Review Request: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jbowes at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://jbowes.dangerouslyinc.com/tmp/stgit.spec SRPM URL: http://jbowes.dangerouslyinc.com/tmp/stgit-0.12-1.src.rpm Description: StGIT is a Python application providing similar functionality to Quilt (i.e. pushing/popping patches to/from a stack) on top of GIT. These operations are performed using GIT commands and the patches are stored as GIT commit objects, allowing easy merging of the StGIT patches into other repositories using standard GIT functionality. Note that StGIT is not an SCM interface on top of GIT and it expects a previously initialised GIT repository (unless it is cloned using StGIT directly). For standard SCM operations, either use plain GIT commands or the Cogito tool but it is not recommended to mix them with the StGIT commands. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 00:48:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:48:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227946] Review Request: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090048.l190mpn1015104@bugzilla.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: stgit - StGIT provides similar functionality to Quilt on top of GIT https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227946 ------- Additional Comments From jbowes at redhat.com 2007-02-08 19:48 EST ------- rpmlint output: [jbowes at localhost code]$ rpmlint /home/jbowes/rpmbuild/SRPMS/stgit-0.12-1.src.rpm [jbowes at localhost code]$ rpmlint /home/jbowes/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/stgit-0.12-1.noarch.rpm E: stgit script-without-shebang /usr/share/stgit/contrib/stgbashprompt.sh stgbashpromt.sh is a contributed file that is meant to be sourced, so the missing shebang shouldn't be a problem. Though maybe it should not be installed as executable? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 01:00:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:00:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090100.l19105QQ015481@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: avalon-logkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-08 19:59 EST ------- MUST: X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ? * package is named appropriately * specfile name matches %{name} X package meets packaging guidelines. . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot it should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) . do we need section free? * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English X specfile is legible . do we still need the crazy gcj_support line? X source files match upstream . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the tar.gz. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on the other arches in Fedora Core presently) X BuildRequires are proper . are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in Requires(post{,un})? * no locale data so no find_lang necessary * package is not relocatable X package owns all directories and files . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the %file section? * no %files duplicates * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * no large docs so no -doc subpackage . javadoc package present * %doc files don't affect runtime * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * no desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine * final provides and requires are sane $ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm avalon-logkit-1.2.jar.so avalon-logkit = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7 $ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm avalon-logkit-javadoc = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7 $ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh avalon-framework >= 0:4.1.4 java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jdbc-stdext jms libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) libgcj_bc.so.1 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) servlet $ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 SHOULD: * package includes license text * package builds on i386 ... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here X package functions . I don't know how to test this package X package builds in mock my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems here as the package currently builds fine in brew -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 01:38:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:38:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090138.l191c2NJ017327@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-08 20:37 EST ------- MUST: X rpmlint on regexp srpm gives no output W: regexp non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ? * package is named appropriately * specfile name matches %{name} X package meets packaging guidelines. . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot it should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) . do we need section free? * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English X specfile is legible . do we still need the crazy gcj_support line? X source files match upstream . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the tar.gz. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on the other arches in Fedora Core presently) X BuildRequires are proper . why is jpackage-utils in Requires(pre,post)? * no locale data so no find_lang necessary * package is not relocatable X package owns all directories and files . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the %file section? * no %files duplicates * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * no large docs so no -doc subpackage . javadoc package present * %doc files don't affect runtime * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * no desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine X final provides and requires are sane $ rpm -qp --provides i386/regexp-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm regexp-1.4.jar.so regexp = 0:1.4-3jpp.1.fc7 $ rpm -qp --provides i386/regexp-javadoc-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm regexp-javadoc = 0:1.4-3jpp.1.fc7 Do we need a 'java' dependency somewhere? Does the (erroneous, I think) Requires(pre,post) on jpackage-utils imply a regular Requires on it? Do we need things in coreutils (rpm, ln) in Requires(post,postun)? $ rpm -qp --requires i386/regexp-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcj_bc.so.1 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -qp --requires i386/regexp-javadoc-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 SHOULD: * package includes license text * package builds on i386 ... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here X package functions . I don't know how to test this package X package builds in mock my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems here as the package currently builds fine in brew -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 01:44:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:44:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227955] New: Review Request: yum-refresh-updatesd - Tell yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits 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=227955 Summary: Review Request: yum-refresh-updatesd - Tell yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jbowes at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://jbowes.dangerouslyinc.com/tmp/yum-refresh-updatesd.spec SRPM URL: http://jbowes.dangerouslyinc.com/tmp/yum-refresh-updatesd-0.0.3-2.src.rpm Description: yum-refresh-updatesd tells yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits. This way, if you run 'yum list updates' and yum says there's a new version of (for example) zsh available, puplet will almost instantly update itself to reflect this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 01:47:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:47:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227955] Review Request: yum-refresh-updatesd - Tell yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090147.l191lnBk017601@bugzilla.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: yum-refresh-updatesd - Tell yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227955 ------- Additional Comments From jbowes at redhat.com 2007-02-08 20:47 EST ------- rpmlint output: [jbowes at localhost ~]$ rpmlint /home/jbowes/rpmbuild/SRPMS/yum-refresh-updatesd-0.0.3-2.src.rpm W: yum-refresh-updatesd strange-permission yum-refresh-updatesd.spec 0600 [jbowes at localhost ~]$ rpmlint /home/jbowes/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/yum-refresh-updatesd-0.0.3-2.noarch.rpm E: yum-refresh-updatesd only-non-binary-in-usr-lib The srpm warning is an artifact of the srpm being created via a makefile target; it would not exist if the srpm was made "by hand". The error is unavoidable, as yum requires plugins to be in /usr/lib/yum-plugins -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 02:07:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:07:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090207.l1927bpS018228@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-08 21:07 EST ------- I see two issues being expressed here: 1) Convenience. file-roller will need a one-character change in the spec approximately four times per year. 2) Factuality. When we are heavily involved with upstream (ex: Mozilla), there will be times when we have access to tarballs that aren't yet available in publicly available trees. These are the reasons not to include the full URL in the source line. The reasons for having the full source URL are to help reviewers, qa people, and automated scripts find and verify the source. I asked about this on fedora-packaging and got a limited response where #1 was seen as not having significant benefits for a change. #2 was seen as something that we need to make an exception for but needed more information. So if you're okay with it, I'd like to drop trying to change #1 and concentrate on #2. For #2, we'd like to know if the source tarball eventually lands at a specific URL or if it's often not publically available at all. Is it a snapshot or something more formal? If the tarball eventually lands someplace, just that it wouldn't necessarily be present at the time we build, then we probably want to include the full URL where the tarball will eventually land with a note that the source may not be present there at this exact moment. If the source will never land one person suggested using a patch against the last released tarball. Another suggestion was to allow the mozilla source to go through with a spec file comment explaining why there is no upstream URL. A third suggestion was to treat it like a Red Hat created application which is only distributed in the srpm. We don't have a policy for that yet so what the proceedure will be for that is unknown. If that's the route you think we need to go, I'll start drafting something with Jeremy and let you know what it looks like. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 02:16:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090216.l192GAua018529@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fitzsim at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 02:26:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:26:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090226.l192QdtT019358@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From caillon at redhat.com 2007-02-08 21:26 EST ------- #1. There are other packages where this is more frequent and might be more than just a 1 character change, such as some sort of checksum in the path. The bottom line is that while there are patterns, they are impossible to script in every case and is an IMO unnecessary requirement. #2. When I get it from upstream which is about 75% of the time, it will eventually land somewhere, but I don't always know what the URL will be. Sometimes I am forced to pull directly from CVS and this tarball will never be posted publicly. In the mozilla case, patching against the latest tarball is wrong. There are hundreds of patches between releases and to sort them out is silly. Shipping a megadiff is also wrong because it makes it harder to maintain, and I'd like to avoid becoming Debian. #3 Additionally, forcing an http URI which the current guidelines mandate is not going to fly for packages which don't distribute tarballs, but are maintained in a git repository and have people check them out by tag. I would like to see all these items addressed and furthermore, I'd like to see this changed from a required item to a recommended item. There is no real one-size-fits all here that I can tell. Additionally, It has no impact on the quality of the RPM or the testability. Aiding reviewers is nice, but does not impact the RPM itself, and they can always ask. As far as doing automated md5sum matching, it is also nice, but I personally have no issue verifying it myself, as I do for all source tarballs before I do anything with them (even locally). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 02:37:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:37:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090237.l192bqBS019683@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800 ------- Additional Comments From tromey at redhat.com 2007-02-08 21:37 EST ------- Thanks once again. I applied this patch. I saw this rpmlint error but somehow managed to ignore it :-/ I also saw the no documentation complaint but, I agree, we can ignore it. There's simply no docs to put in there. I've uploaded the latest. http://people.redhat.com/~tromey/bbdb-srpm/emacs-bbdb-2.35-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 02:55:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:55:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090255.l192tmtF020286@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 toshio at tiki-lounge.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |197974 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-08 21:55 EST ------- #1 Please give me some arguments as to why it's an unnecessary requirement. Without arguments, it's going to fail to pass the committee. With arguments it may or may not pass but at least it'll be considered. #2 Given your relation with upstream on Mozilla we could use the snapshot method from #3 or the unwritten sources-only-in-srpm policy. Let me know which one would be preferable. #3 I thought was taken care of in the rules for snapshots. However, I'm unable to find any snapshot guidelines on the wiki. Looks like it's been an undocumented guideline passed down on the mailing lists. Basically, you have to give the commands to generate the source tarball from the repo in a comment or provide a script which can generate the tarball. Snapshots also use a date in the release tag which you may or may not like. I'll write up the snapshot guideline and propose it since this is something that we've been doing for a while. Let me know if I need to put my head together with jeremy and expedite the "sources only in srpm" policy as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 02:55:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 21:55:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197974] Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090255.l192tx2P020306@bugzilla.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: Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines Alias: FE-GUIDELINES https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197974 toshio at tiki-lounge.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |225751 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:02:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:02:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090302.l19329K9020496@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-08 22:01 EST ------- - Source0 is not an absolute URL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:07:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:07:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090307.l19378n1020754@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO| |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-08 22:07 EST ------- MUST: * is this appropriate for Fedora? X rpmlint on jakarta-commons-el srpm gives no output $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/SRPMS/jakarta-commons-el-1.0-7jpp.1.src.rpm W: jakarta-commons-el non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Group should be just: "Development/Libraries". Here's a list of valid groups: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/jakarta-commons-el-javadoc-1.0-7jpp.1.i386.rpm W: jakarta-commons-el-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: jakarta-commons-el-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jakarta-commons-el-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Group should be just: "Documentation". Why the %post/%postun sections? %post javadoc rm -f %{_javadocdir}/%{name} ln -s %{name}-%{version} %{_javadocdir}/%{name} %postun javadoc if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then rm -f %{_javadocdir}/%{name} fi %files javadoc %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} %ghost %doc %{_javadocdir}/%{name} Why not just include the symlink in the javadoc subpackage and eliminate the use of %post, %postun and %ghost? * package is named appropriately * specfile name matches %{name} * package meets packaging guidelines. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English * specfile is legible * source files match upstream * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper * find_lang usage correct * package is not relocatable * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * no large docs so no -doc subpackage * %doc files don't affect runtime * gcj .so files need not be in a -devel sub-package * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine * binary RPMs function on x86 * final provides and requires are sane SHOULD: * package includes license text * description and summary sections don't have translations (OK) * package builds in mock * package builds on i386 * package functions as described X scriptlets should be sane See above questions about %post and %postun sections. * no -devel package * no pkgconfig files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:38:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:38:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225980] Merge Review: latex2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090338.l193cBHM022793@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: latex2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225980 ed at eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ed at eh3.com ------- Additional Comments From ed at eh3.com 2007-02-08 22:38 EST ------- good: + source matches upstream needswork: - The license looks problematic (it has a "no fees or compensation" clause) and the package does not include a copy of it despite the explicit terms saying it must be "prominently carried on all copies". I'll continue with the review but the license bits probably (?) need attention first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:45:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:45:12 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090345.l193jCUQ023489@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226479: Merge Review: tcl Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Wart has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:45:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:45:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090345.l193jDUB023493@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wart at kobold.org Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:47:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:47:48 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090347.l193lmIx023795@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226186: Merge Review: ncpfs Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi Hey mitr... I think the procedure we are using currently is to reassign back to the reviewer and reset the fedora-review flag to ? when you want the reviewer to check back on changes... I am doing so here so tibbs can continue. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:48:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:48:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090348.l193m0lD023856@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mitr at redhat.com |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-08 22:47 EST ------- Hey mitr... I think the procedure we are using currently is to reassign back to the reviewer and reset the fedora-review flag to ? when you want the reviewer to check back on changes... I am doing so here so tibbs can continue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:48:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:48:53 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226162] Merge Review: mtools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090348.l193mrYN023986@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226162: Merge Review: mtools Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226162 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi Setting flag back to ? to notify ed to re-check things. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:49:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:49:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226162] Merge Review: mtools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090349.l193n4sc024010@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mtools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226162 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-08 22:48 EST ------- Setting flag back to ? to notify ed to re-check things. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:55:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:55:45 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090355.l193tjrB024421@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225928: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has denied Kevin Fenzi 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi Hey Thomas. The current way we are doing these reviews is described at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags So, you should set the 'fedora-review' flag to - and reassign back to the owner/submitter to fix items you see in your review. Then when they do so, they should add a comment, change 'fedora-review' to ? and reassign back to you to look over. Once you approve the package reassign the review back to the submitter and set the 'fedora-review' flag to + Blocker bugs aren't being used for these reviews. Could you re-assign and set the flags? From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:55:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090355.l193tuVm024445@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-08 22:55 EST ------- Hey Thomas. The current way we are doing these reviews is described at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags So, you should set the 'fedora-review' flag to - and reassign back to the owner/submitter to fix items you see in your review. Then when they do so, they should add a comment, change 'fedora-review' to ? and reassign back to you to look over. Once you approve the package reassign the review back to the submitter and set the 'fedora-review' flag to + Blocker bugs aren't being used for these reviews. Could you re-assign and set the flags? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:57:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090357.l193v9Tn024522@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hdparm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-08 22:57 EST ------- In reply to comment #3: Yeah, since that was a review from a not yes sponsored reviewer, it should be left open for an official review. Thanks for looking at this Andy! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 03:58:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:58:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090358.l193wL94024631@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-08 22:58 EST ------- Hey Andrew: The current way we are doing these reviews is described at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags So, you should set the 'fedora-review' flag to - and reassign back to the owner/submitter to fix items you see in your review. Then when they do so, they should add a comment, change 'fedora-review' to ? and reassign back to you to look over. Once you approve the package reassign the review back to the submitter and set the 'fedora-review' flag to + Blocker bugs aren't being used for these reviews. Can you set the assigned and flags as you see fit? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:03:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:03:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090403.l1943wgx024980@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|sgrubb at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-08 23:03 EST ------- Thanks Steve. Reassigning this to me to look at. Hopefully later tonight, but if not, tomorrow. Thanks for the prompt fixes... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:06:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:06:11 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090406.l1946Bvc025101@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226479: Merge Review: tcl Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Wart has denied Wart 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments from Wart Since Tcl is currently flip-flopping between 8.5a5 and 8.4, I'll start with some of the low-hanging fruit in the spec file, and return to more version-specific issues once it settles down. * Source1 should no longer be necessary now that tk has been split out into a separate package. This will greatly reduce the size of the src rpm. * Removing Source1 will let you collapse the build directory by one level, since the tk sources no longer get unpacked alongside the tcl sources. Make sure to adjust the setup and patch commands to reflect this new structure. * Source2 contains the html sources. Aren't these already built from the Tcl sources, or do they have to come from a separate tarball? If they must come from a separate tarball, it would be nice to include a pointer to the original url, or commands used to generate the html files. * BuildRequires: sed not necessary. Likewise, I suspect that BuildRequires: man isn't needed either. * The Version: and URL: tags for the subpackages are redundant. They are copied from the main package if not found. * In %build, ls %{_tmppath} is pointless. Delete it. * Move the 'make test' conditionals to a separate '%check' section instead of putting it in %build. * %install contains a 'make html' command that appears to be building the html documentation. This should be in %build, unless it requires Tcl to be installed before running. Even if that's the case, it might be possible to run Tcl from the build directory in order to generate the html docs. Either move 'make html' to %build, or document in the spec file why it needs to be in %install. * The backwards compatible symlink might be better addressed by creating explicit directories. As it is now, it creates a link from /usr/lib to /usr/share/tcl8.5 on 64-bit systems, and doesn't create and own /usr/lib/tcl8.5 at all. See bug #227200 for one possible workaround. * The %post and %postun sections should be replaced by one-liners: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:06:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090406.l1946CTH025109@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wart at kobold.org |mmaslano at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-08 23:06 EST ------- Since Tcl is currently flip-flopping between 8.5a5 and 8.4, I'll start with some of the low-hanging fruit in the spec file, and return to more version-specific issues once it settles down. * Source1 should no longer be necessary now that tk has been split out into a separate package. This will greatly reduce the size of the src rpm. * Removing Source1 will let you collapse the build directory by one level, since the tk sources no longer get unpacked alongside the tcl sources. Make sure to adjust the setup and patch commands to reflect this new structure. * Source2 contains the html sources. Aren't these already built from the Tcl sources, or do they have to come from a separate tarball? If they must come from a separate tarball, it would be nice to include a pointer to the original url, or commands used to generate the html files. * BuildRequires: sed not necessary. Likewise, I suspect that BuildRequires: man isn't needed either. * The Version: and URL: tags for the subpackages are redundant. They are copied from the main package if not found. * In %build, ls %{_tmppath} is pointless. Delete it. * Move the 'make test' conditionals to a separate '%check' section instead of putting it in %build. * %install contains a 'make html' command that appears to be building the html documentation. This should be in %build, unless it requires Tcl to be installed before running. Even if that's the case, it might be possible to run Tcl from the build directory in order to generate the html docs. Either move 'make html' to %build, or document in the spec file why it needs to be in %install. * The backwards compatible symlink might be better addressed by creating explicit directories. As it is now, it creates a link from /usr/lib to /usr/share/tcl8.5 on 64-bit systems, and doesn't create and own /usr/lib/tcl8.5 at all. See bug #227200 for one possible workaround. * The %post and %postun sections should be replaced by one-liners: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:16:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225297] Merge Review: autofs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090416.l194GPCf025681@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autofs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225297 orion at cora.nwra.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com 2007-02-08 23:16 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 227631 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:16:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:16:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090416.l194GbH1025709@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com 2007-02-08 23:16 EST ------- *** Bug 225297 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:20:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:20:35 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090420.l194KZHY025934@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226105: Merge Review: logwatch Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Kevin Fenzi has denied Ivana Varekova 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 ------- Additional Comments from Kevin Fenzi 1. Removing them I guess is ok. Have you contacted upstream about distributing them at all? 2. good. ok. 3.1. %build added ok. 3.2. 644 on all the services looks good. ok. 3.3. The logwatch.pl links are still not relative... Suggest: Change: ln -s %{_datadir}/logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/cron.daily/0logwatch ln -s %{_datadir}/logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}/logwatch to ln -s ../../%{_datadir}logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/cron.daily/0logwatch ln -s ../../%{_datadir}logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}/logwatch 3.4. The "pix" file still has dos CR/FE endings... Suggest: %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/logwatch/scripts/services/pix 3.5. ok. So, 3.3 and 3.4 are the only outstanding items I see... Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:20:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:20:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090420.l194KkVt025951@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-08 23:20 EST ------- 1. Removing them I guess is ok. Have you contacted upstream about distributing them at all? 2. good. ok. 3.1. %build added ok. 3.2. 644 on all the services looks good. ok. 3.3. The logwatch.pl links are still not relative... Suggest: Change: ln -s %{_datadir}/logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/cron.daily/0logwatch ln -s %{_datadir}/logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}/logwatch to ln -s ../../%{_datadir}logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/cron.daily/0logwatch ln -s ../../%{_datadir}logwatch/scripts/logwatch.pl %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}/logwatch 3.4. The "pix" file still has dos CR/FE endings... Suggest: %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/logwatch/scripts/services/pix 3.5. ok. So, 3.3 and 3.4 are the only outstanding items I see... Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:35:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:35:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090435.l194Z9NB027253@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-08 23:35 EST ------- Hi Xavier, Kindly assign review to yourself and change blockers to 163778 when you want to review and approve any package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:51:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:51:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227719] Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090451.l194paap029130@bugzilla.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: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227719 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-08 23:51 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPMS. + source files match upstream. 2136a65e7b72ba5f5cd7ae5ebdc2205c gpixpod-0.6.2.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + translations are available. + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Desktop files installed correctly. + python guidelines followed. + GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:56:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225365] Review Request: perl-File-Next - File-finding iterator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090456.l194uv23029670@bugzilla.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-Next - File-finding iterator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225365 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 04:58:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:58:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225365] Review Request: perl-File-Next - File-finding iterator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090458.l194w1X4029824@bugzilla.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-Next - File-finding iterator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225365 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-08 23:57 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 3ba4accaafebd1dcada17839c122eca6 File-Next-0.38.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Provides: perl(File::Next) = 0.38 + make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/00-load.........# Testing File::Next 0.38, Perl 5.008008, /usr/bin/perl ok t/api.............ok t/basic...........ok t/dirs............ok t/dot.............ok t/follow..........ok t/parms...........ok t/pod-coverage....ok t/pod.............ok t/sort............ok All tests successful. Files=10, Tests=57, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.51 cusr + 0.11 csys = 0.62 CPU) APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:00:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:00:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090500.l1950Fi1029969@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ikent at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(ikent at redhat.com) | ------- Additional Comments From ikent at redhat.com 2007-02-09 00:00 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > > - rpmlint checks return: > > W: autofs no-url-tag > > Is there any? Not really. I registered autofs.net and started a wiki (wiki.autofs.net) but it needs quite a bit of care and attention. We could use it anyway. Have a look and see what you think. > > W: autofs unversioned-explicit-obsoletes autofs-ldap > The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all > older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update > problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it > was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if > possible. Not sure but I believe this was added when going from autofs version 3 to autofs version 4 and all versions of autofs-ldap needed to be obsoleted. Probably good to keep this. > > W: autofs macro-in-%changelog _xxx > Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead > to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that > affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in > possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally > odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros > in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. Done. > > W: autofs mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 481, tab: line 102) > The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a > cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. Done. > > - Why define %version and %release? Aren't they are defined automatically? Yep. Removed them. > > - Consider Requires: chkconfig rather than Requires: /sbin/chkconfig, easier on > the depsolvers and unlikely to change. Similar for /bin/bash, others. Done. Removed leading path where possible. > > - %clean should just be: > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Yep. Done. > > > - exit 0 in %preun seems unneeded. I noticed that, but wasn't sure about it. It's been removed now. > > - %defattr should be: > %defattr(-,root,root,-) Fixed. > > - There's an empty %doc line. > > - Still need to ship %dir /misc? You don't with /net. Yep. Removed and removed. > > - This: > > %dir %{_libdir}/autofs > %{_libdir}/autofs/* > > could be: > > %{_libdir}/autofs/ Yep. Consolidated these. I've commited the changes as autofs-5.0.1-0.rc3.17 but haven't yet built the package, waiting any further feedback. The changes should be available at (when they get there): http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/autofs/ Thanks Ian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:04:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:04:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090504.l1954wnx030216@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ------- Additional Comments From ikent at redhat.com 2007-02-09 00:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source > > Ian - shouldn't we be reviewing from CVS? Ha .. yep. Being the robot type that I am I just followed the process pointed to by Bill Nottingham's mail without thinking. Ian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:08:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:08:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225364] Review Request: perl-App-CLI - Dispatcher module for command line interface programs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090508.l1958JBM030336@bugzilla.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-App-CLI - Dispatcher module for command line interface programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225364 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:09:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:09:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225364] Review Request: perl-App-CLI - Dispatcher module for command line interface programs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090509.l1959sLu030443@bugzilla.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-App-CLI - Dispatcher module for command line interface programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225364 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-09 00:09 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream. 8981b0628874bb7e83b00b00e58a7259 App-CLI-0.07.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Provides: perl(App::CLI) = 0.07 perl(App::CLI::Command) perl(App::CLI::Command::Help) + make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'inc', 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/1basic.t t/1basic....ok All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=8, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.06 cusr + 0.01 csys = 0.07 CPU) APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:10:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:10:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090510.l195AN6O030504@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-09 00:10 EST ------- > - Consider Requires: chkconfig rather than Requires: /sbin/chkconfig, Sorry, I have to disagree on this, these must stay: Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/service Requires(postun): /sbin/service Requires(postun): /sbin/chkconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:19:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:19:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090519.l195JZSt030816@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ------- Additional Comments From ikent at redhat.com 2007-02-09 00:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > > - Consider Requires: chkconfig rather than Requires: /sbin/chkconfig, > > Sorry, I have to disagree on this, these must stay: > > Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig > Requires(preun): /sbin/service > Requires(postun): /sbin/service > Requires(postun): /sbin/chkconfig Sure. Could you explain please? Ian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:21:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:21:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225367] Review Request: perl-Path-Class - Cross-platform path specification manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090521.l195L4lZ030889@bugzilla.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-Path-Class - Cross-platform path specification manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225367 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:22:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225367] Review Request: perl-Path-Class - Cross-platform path specification manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090522.l195MixP030964@bugzilla.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-Path-Class - Cross-platform path specification manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225367 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-09 00:22 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. - URL is not working. + source files match when used as upstream url http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/K/KW/KWILLIAMS/Path-Class-0.16.tar.gz 2416d2f5ed1a8a98525baea5c25e1c Path-Class-0.16.tar.gz - Change Source URL. + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Provides: perl(Path::Class) = 0.16 perl(Path::Class::Dir) perl(Path::Class::Entity) perl(Path::Class::File) + make test t/01-basic.........ok t/02-foreign.......# Test 28 got: "dir/subdir" (t/02-foreign.t at line 68 *TODO*) # Expected: "/dir/subdir" # t/02-foreign.t line 68 is: ok $dir->as_foreign('Unix'), '/dir/subdir'; # Test 29 got: "" (t/02-foreign.t at line 69 *TODO*) # Expected: "1" # t/02-foreign.t line 69 is: ok $dir->as_foreign('Unix')->is_absolute, 1; ok 2/29 skipped: Can't test VMS code on other platforms t/03-filesystem....ok All tests successful, 2 subtests skipped. Files=3, Tests=158, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.27 cusr + 0.07 csys = 0.34 CPU) APPROVED. Change Source URL. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:30:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:30:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225366] Review Request: perl-Module-Depends - Identify the dependencies of a distribution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090530.l195Udts031200@bugzilla.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-Depends - Identify the dependencies of a distribution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225366 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:31:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225366] Review Request: perl-Module-Depends - Identify the dependencies of a distribution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090531.l195VqXW031292@bugzilla.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-Depends - Identify the dependencies of a distribution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225366 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-09 00:31 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url a5751f458e410217ba39f7f32fa8899a Module-Depends-0.10.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Provides: perl(Module::Depends) = 0.10 perl(Module::Depends::Intrusive) perl(Module::Depends::Intrusive::Fake::Module::Build) + make test t/depends....ok All tests successful. Files=1, Tests=16, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.30 cusr + 0.04 csys = 0.34 CPU) APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 05:53:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:53:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090553.l195rFU9032334@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-09 00:53 EST ------- 1. I generally contest the assertion that replacing file deps with package deps is "good". They are not equivalent. It ignores the fact that applications can be moved between packages at any time, and that tools can change their location (even within a package) at any time. 2. rpm scriptlets introduce a direct dependency of a package on a file and will fail or produce invalid results when these files move/are removed/replaced. 3. rpm scriptlets are special wrt. execution order upon package removal/upgrade/installation (for details c.f. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets) This introduces special constraints on package dependencies, which become utterly complicated when tools change their location rsp. move between packages. Admitted, /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service and /bin/bash are unlikely to be moved/removed in near future, but for the sake of clarity of specs and to avoid problems related to 1-3. above, I am enforcing a rule of "To be safe, each tool being explicitly and unconditionally invoked in scriptlets, must be explicitly listed as file dep in Requires(xxx)" I am not sure if there is a corresponding rule in the guideline, but I think so. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 06:02:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 01:02:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090602.l1962C8H032759@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 06:02:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 01:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090602.l1962Su8000301@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 06:09:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 01:09:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090609.l19690If000462@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-09 01:08 EST ------- any reason for not naming this package's name starting with perl- ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 06:09:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 01:09:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090609.l1969apb000489@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-09 01:09 EST ------- Source URL not working. check that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 06:29:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 01:29:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090629.l196TmYN001311@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-09 01:29 EST ------- Sorry for the delay in reviewing this... OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 3ee58cbf5486c97ef3bc0c4368a344cc redland-1.0.4.tar.gz 3ee58cbf5486c97ef3bc0c4368a344cc redland-1.0.4.tar.gz.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage. OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version Issues: 1. You have the License as: "LGPL or Apache License 2.0", but it apparently also is optionally licensed under the GPL, so you should add that option. 2. -devel package has a .pc file, so shouldn't it Requires: pkgconfig 3. rpmlint our little friend says: W: redland invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0 W: redland invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0 W: redland-debuginfo invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0 W: redland-devel invalid-license LGPL or Apache License 2.0 Can be ignored I think. 4. You aren't packaging the newest version, but thats due to the version of rasqal available. Is there a bug filed for updating that? 5. The package dumps 18 files into /usr/include/ Perhaps it could be changed to put them in a /usr/include/redland/ instead? (And then the .pc file would need to be adjusted to include the right -I/usr/include/redland. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 08:19:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 03:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090819.l198JI1V006083@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ------- Additional Comments From ikent at redhat.com 2007-02-09 03:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > 1. I generally contest the assertion that replacing file deps with package deps > is "good". > > They are not equivalent. It ignores the fact that applications can be moved > between packages at any time, and that tools can change their location (even > within a package) at any time. > > 2. rpm scriptlets introduce a direct dependency of a package on a file and will > fail or produce invalid results when these files move/are removed/replaced. > > 3. rpm scriptlets are special wrt. execution order upon package > removal/upgrade/installation (for details c.f. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets) > > This introduces special constraints on package dependencies, which become > utterly complicated when tools change their location rsp. move between packages. > > > Admitted, /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service and /bin/bash are unlikely to be > moved/removed in near future, but for the sake of clarity of specs and to avoid > problems related to 1-3. above, I am enforcing a rule of > "To be safe, each tool being explicitly and unconditionally invoked in > scriptlets, must be explicitly listed as file dep in Requires(xxx)" > > I am not sure if there is a corresponding rule in the guideline, but I think so. Yes. Changed back. That's what I had originally. I made it that way prior to the review because it seemed the safest way and made the spec file usage consistent, but not quite the level of thinking as above. This doesn't appear to be covered in the guidelines above but reading them there is an implicit use of full paths in scriplets and Requires which implies the points above. Ian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 08:28:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 03:28:37 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090828.l198SbQP006567@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225981: Merge Review: lcms Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Dan Horak has granted Dan Horak 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 ------- Additional Comments from Dan Horak I don't see any other problems, so this package is APPROVED. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 08:28:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 03:28:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090828.l198SmvX006588@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-09 03:28 EST ------- I don't see any other problems, so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 08:29:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 03:29:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225981] Merge Review: lcms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090829.l198TqJS006713@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lcms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225981 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dan at danny.cz |alexl at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 09:01:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 04:01:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090901.l1991Kit009114@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-09 04:01 EST ------- Could you, please, use the latest snapshot (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/utils/file/managers/mc/snapshots/mc-2007-01-24-03.tar.gz) so I can check the checksum of the source file? The packaged version was deleted from the upstream location. There are still some warnings and errors from rpmlint, so we will have to check their relevancy yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 09:04:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 04:04:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090904.l19949Ue009796@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-09 04:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Well, > > * BuildRequires > - Mockbuild fails on FC7 i386 (needs desktop-file-utils) > Oops, can't believe I forgot that, fixed. > * Documentation > - Please add other "README" files > I assume you mean INSTALL.txt ICON.txt and TODO.txt? INSTALL.txt and ICON.txt both contain installation instructions and thus should not be packaged. I've added TODO.txt > * Timestamps > - keep timestamps on image files and etc, i.e. use "cp -p" > or "install -p" > Fixed > * Desktop file entry > ----------------------------------------------------- > --add-category X-Fedora \ > ----------------------------------------------------- > is deprecated and should be removed. > > * Scriptlets > ----------------------------------------------------- > if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ]; then > ----------------------------------------------------- > is redundant because execution of non-existing file > simply exits with 127 and is ignored by || : I've been doing things like this for over a year now, I know there was some discussion about both of these but I never followed it close enough to learn the new guidelines, to busy with other Fedora stuff. I've read the new guidelines now, thanks for straightening me out on this -> Both fixed. Here is a new version with all this fixed: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gemdropx.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gemdropx-0.9-2.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 09:12:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 04:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224254] Review Request: bos - Real-time strategy game using the Stratagus game engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090912.l199CT5t010553@bugzilla.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: bos - Real-time strategy game using the Stratagus game engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224254 ------- Additional Comments From sander at hoentjen.eu 2007-02-09 04:12 EST ------- during building i got: + desktop-file-install --vendor=fedora --dir=/var/tmp/battle-of-survival-2.0.1-3-root-tjikkun/usr/share/applications /home/tjikkun/rpmbuild/SOURCES/battle-of-survival.desktop /home/tjikkun/rpmbuild/SOURCES/battle-of-survival.desktop: key "Categories" string list not semicolon-terminated, fixing /var/tmp/battle-of-survival-2.0.1-3-root-tjikkun/usr/share/applications/fedora-battle-of-survival.desktop: warning: The 'Application' category is not defined by the desktop entry specification. Please use one of "AudioVideo", "Audio", "Video", "Development", "Education", "Game", "Graphics", "Network", "Office", "Settings", "System", "Utility" instead It did build ok. Trying to run however failed on my x86_64: $ battle-of-survival Maybe you need to specify another gamepath with '-d /path/to/datadir'? This is because /usr/bin/battle-of-survival still has stratagus -d /usr/share/bos Sander -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 09:13:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 04:13:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090913.l199Dlou010650@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-09 04:13 EST ------- oky doky, I don't see a section in our guidelines about this, but not a problem. Absolute URL for Source: in the current version -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 09:19:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 04:19:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 193059] Review Request: ibmasm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090919.l199JtK4011074@bugzilla.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: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2007-02-09 04:19 EST ------- headers should be 644. Something must have gone odd on my box. No worries ;-) Current version builds fine in and out of mock, doesn't have any problems with missing requirements and rpmlint is quiet. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 09:30:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 04:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090930.l199UGhL014535@bugzilla.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: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gauret at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-09 04:30 EST ------- Actually, strigiclient is not a search frontend, it's more like a daemon configuration tool. I think it should have a desktop file and be in the menu (in the configuration submenu maybe ?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 09:40:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 04:40:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090940.l199eKFJ015373@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-09 04:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > oky doky, I don't see a section in our guidelines about this, but not a problem. > Absolute URL for Source: in the current version Where have you been throughout the years Fedora exists? This rule had even been enforced during Fedora.us. But I realize, the Guidelines are a bit vague on this. The rationale behind this: Without an absolute URL, it's unnecessary hard to * verify if the source tarball matches upstream or if it has been compromised. * to track upstream activities (Is the tarball still there, has a new version been released etc.) You will also want to have a look at /usr/bin/spectool (from package rpmdevtools, available from FE). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 09:41:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 04:41:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090941.l199f7uS015423@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-09 04:40 EST ------- Well, what provides XML/XHTML modes? I don't have any package installed that does. On removing emacs-nxml-mode, .xsl files open in fundamental mode here. I think if there are different packages each trying to modify auto-mode-alist, it just comes down to which order their init files are read. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 09:45:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 04:45:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702090945.l199jnVP015673@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 04:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > > * Documentation > > - Please add other "README" files > > > I assume you mean INSTALL.txt ICON.txt and TODO.txt? > INSTALL.txt and ICON.txt both contain installation instructions and thus should > not be packaged. I've added TODO.txt Ah.. I meant: ---------------------------------------- ./data/images/README ./data/sounds/README ./README.txt ./action/README.txt ---------------------------------------- These files explains where the image/sounds files came from and I think adding these files is kinder. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 10:24:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 05:24:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091024.l19AOdHO017997@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 pvrabec at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-09 05:24 EST ------- thnx. Ruben, patch applied. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 10:25:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 05:25:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226104] Merge Review: logrotate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091025.l19APeM5018069@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logrotate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226104 pvrabec at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-09 05:25 EST ------- fixed in logrotate-3.7.4-13.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 10:35:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 05:35:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226185] Merge Review: ncompress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091035.l19AZtRB018656@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncompress https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226185 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-09 05:35 EST ------- fixed in ncompress-4.2.4-49.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 10:38:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 05:38:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091038.l19AcbGr018942@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-09 05:38 EST ------- The wiki says "- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task." Maybe we could rephrase that in a form which makes clear that full URL is mandatory (and sha1sum is also allowed as alternative) ? Since this version is, just as you said, a bit vague, I was never picky about full URL, as long as the URL + %name + %version led to a valid result. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 10:49:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 05:49:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091049.l19Anbbj019932@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-09 05:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > * Documentation > > > - Please add other "README" files > > > > > I assume you mean INSTALL.txt ICON.txt and TODO.txt? > > INSTALL.txt and ICON.txt both contain installation instructions and thus should > > not be packaged. I've added TODO.txt > > Ah.. I meant: > ---------------------------------------- > ./data/images/README > ./data/sounds/README > ./README.txt > ./action/README.txt > ---------------------------------------- > These files explains where the image/sounds files came > from and I think adding these files is kinder. I see, Good idea, new version with these files added is here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gemdropx.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/gemdropx-0.9-2.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 10:53:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 05:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226511] Merge Review: unifdef In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091053.l19ArQk2020305@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unifdef https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226511 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood at gmail.com 2007-02-09 05:53 EST ------- I wonder if you still think there's a need to include an unifdef package when sunifdef is available currently in Extras (packaged by me) - sunifdef is effectively upstream now, since unifdef hasn't been maintained for a while. "Sunifdef is a commandline tool for eliminating superfluous preprocessor clutter from C and C++ source files. It is a more powerful successor to the FreeBSD 'unifdef' tool." http://www.sunifdef.strudl.org/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 11:07:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 06:07:06 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091107.l19B76pS022125@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226316: Merge Review: privoxy Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Sarantis Paskalis has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments from Sarantis Paskalis Mark the package as reviewed. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 11:07:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 06:07:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091107.l19B770l022142@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 paskalis at di.uoa.gr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |paskalis at di.uoa.gr Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From paskalis at di.uoa.gr 2007-02-09 06:07 EST ------- Mark the package as reviewed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 11:09:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 06:09:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091109.l19B9IsP022414@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-09 06:09 EST ------- Thanks! Tagged and built as 1.1-39.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 11:13:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 06:13:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091113.l19BDqhh022909@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 06:13 EST ------- Well, I will check 0.9-2 later. By the way, would you tell me in advance to which repository (FE-7/6/5) you want to import this package? (I currently don't know how the new review process will become... and.. do I have to ask the submitter in advance??) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 11:18:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 06:18:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226511] Merge Review: unifdef In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091118.l19BITrS023422@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unifdef https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226511 ------- Additional Comments From dwmw2 at redhat.com 2007-02-09 06:18 EST ------- No, I have no particular need for it since the kernel now includes its own copy of unifdef; it doesn't use the external one any more. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 11:23:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 06:23:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091123.l19BNFUH023880@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-09 06:23 EST ------- Its intended for FE-6 and devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 11:41:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 06:41:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226213] Merge Review: openjade In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091141.l19Bffav025195@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: openjade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226213 Bug 226213 depends on bug 203635, which changed state. Bug 203635 Summary: openjade internal libs .la and .so symlinks should be removed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203635 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 12:14:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:14:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091214.l19CE7IE026874@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-09 07:14 EST ------- Ok, I built the new mc with the latest CVS snapshot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 12:21:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:21:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091221.l19CLJ3V027206@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|twaugh at redhat.com |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 12:23:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:23:09 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091223.l19CN9n1027290@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226436: Merge Review: statserial Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review manuel wolfshant has granted Tim Waugh 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 ------- Additional Comments from manuel wolfshant Formal review for release 39: MUST - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPL ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, sha1sum 3ace36585c82238003b37f267263f06aad4f0afd statserial-1.1.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of foreign files/folders - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - no static, .la, .pc files - rpmlint is silent on src.rpm; for the binary the following warnings are generated: W: statserial spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/statserial-1.1/phone_log W: statserial doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/statserial-1.1/phone_log /bin/bash Since phone_log IS a bash script and bash is supposed to be already installed anyway, no additional packages are actually pulled so I guess both warnings can safely be ignored. SHOULD - Builds fine in mock for FC6 and devel (x86_64) - Runs as advertised on FC6/x86_64 Notes: I have no access to 390 so I can only assume that the hardware being different, the ExcludeArch is justified. APPROVED From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 12:23:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:23:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091223.l19CNL0c027312@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro |twaugh at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-09 07:23 EST ------- Formal review for release 39: MUST - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( GPL ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, sha1sum 3ace36585c82238003b37f267263f06aad4f0afd statserial-1.1.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of foreign files/folders - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - no static, .la, .pc files - rpmlint is silent on src.rpm; for the binary the following warnings are generated: W: statserial spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/statserial-1.1/phone_log W: statserial doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/statserial-1.1/phone_log /bin/bash Since phone_log IS a bash script and bash is supposed to be already installed anyway, no additional packages are actually pulled so I guess both warnings can safely be ignored. SHOULD - Builds fine in mock for FC6 and devel (x86_64) - Runs as advertised on FC6/x86_64 Notes: I have no access to 390 so I can only assume that the hardware being different, the ExcludeArch is justified. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 12:40:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:40:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091240.l19CeoeG028081@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From thomas at apestaart.org 2007-02-09 07:40 EST ------- Thanks for reviewing! Wrt. your issues: 1) Any LGPL package is always allowed to be used under the GPL - this is a standard "feature" of the LGPL. As such I don't think it's necessary to add it to the license field, since I don't see any other LGPL package doing that. What do you think ? 2) yep, will add that 4) will file that bug now. 5) IMO this is up to upstream if this should be changed. I don't necessarily feel it should - the headers seem to be namespaced with rdf_ - but in any case I don't think packagers should make changes like this if they are not strictly necessary because it creates problems for developers. What do you think ? I will push a new package when we resolve 1) and 5) Thanks Thomas -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 12:45:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:45:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226436] Merge Review: statserial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091245.l19Cj0fM028407@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: statserial https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226436 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-09 07:44 EST ------- Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 12:57:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091257.l19CvDJR029486@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-09 07:57 EST ------- thx Parag, so, i'll wait that someone add me in fedorabugs group ans sponsor me. i'll just make unofficial review then -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 12:58:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:58:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091258.l19CwJp3029550@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-09 07:58 EST ------- s/ans/and -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 12:58:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 07:58:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091258.l19CwP3s029564@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-09 07:58 EST ------- Fixed in logwatch-7.3.2-8.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 13:38:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:38:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091338.l19DcMns031642@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From paskalis at di.uoa.gr 2007-02-09 08:38 EST ------- I asked about the --disabled-dynamic-pcre in privoxy development list. There is an issue in privoxy<=3.0.6, fixed since in CVS, that can trigger a crash. That is however a relatively new issue, not an issue since before 2002, when this switch was added. Moreover, Debian uses the dynamic lib, so I propose to drop the swith and to add a Requires: pcre. Discussion on privoxy devel list is here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.privoxy.devel/8000 The patch discussed for privoxy is here: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1621173&group_id=11118&atid=111118 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 13:52:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:52:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091352.l19DqA3u032568@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 pvrabec at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-09 08:52 EST ------- according to "make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" install" should we preserve timestamps on files which were rebuilt? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:01:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:01:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091401.l19E1HOJ001005@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-09 09:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > 5) IMO this is up to upstream if this should be changed. Well, system integration is the task of an rpm's maintainer ;) > I don't necessarily > feel it should - the headers seem to be namespaced with rdf_ - but in any case I > don't think packagers should make changes like this if they are not strictly > necessary because it creates problems for developers. What do you think ? IMO: Move them into a subdir. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:07:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:07:48 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091407.l19E7m32001727@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226998: Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Mamoru Tasaka has granted Mamoru Tasaka 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 ------- Additional Comments from Mamoru Tasaka Okay. ---------------------------------------------------- This package is APPROVED by me with the following summary: * Owner: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl * Name: gemdropx * Summary: Falling blocks puzzlegame * Branch: FC-devel FC-6 ----------------------------------------------------- Requesting cvs admin for making initial directories. Please wait until cvs admin answers on this bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:07:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:07:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091407.l19E7oxb001749@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+, fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 09:07 EST ------- Okay. ---------------------------------------------------- This package is APPROVED by me with the following summary: * Owner: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl * Name: gemdropx * Summary: Falling blocks puzzlegame * Branch: FC-devel FC-6 ----------------------------------------------------- Requesting cvs admin for making initial directories. Please wait until cvs admin answers on this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:18:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:18:24 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091418.l19EIOm8002859@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225882: Merge Review: hdparm Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review manuel wolfshant has denied manuel wolfshant 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 ------- Additional Comments from manuel wolfshant - BuildRoot is not the preferred value - %build does not use smp flags; if not supported, please add a comment in the spec - please also consider including README.accoustic; the feature is documented in the man page, but the README seems to include a bit more info The rest seems OK. Please fix the above and I'll do a full review. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:18:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:18:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091418.l19EIPhi002873@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hdparm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |karsten at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review-, needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-09 09:18 EST ------- - BuildRoot is not the preferred value - %build does not use smp flags; if not supported, please add a comment in the spec - please also consider including README.accoustic; the feature is documented in the man page, but the README seems to include a bit more info The rest seems OK. Please fix the above and I'll do a full review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:22:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:22:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091422.l19EM7aO003254@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bridge-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dwmw2 at redhat.com CC| |jima at beer.tclug.org Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-09 09:22 EST ------- Review time! :-) OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 43bbd2a67b59cac3e15d545f8b51df68 bridge-utils-1.1.tar.gz 43bbd2a67b59cac3e15d545f8b51df68 bridge-utils-1.1.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 2 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. The recommended value for BuildRoot is: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) You may want to use that. 2. rpmlint says: rpmlint on ./bridge-utils-1.1-2.fc7.src.rpm W: bridge-utils setup-not-quiet E: bridge-utils no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install Easily fixed. Add -q to %setup, and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" after %install. 3. Latest version not used http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=26089 says 1.2 is available (and has been since 2006-09-20). Please evaluate whether you should be using this release instead. 4. Bugs open There are two open bugs against this package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205810 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169723 I'm not sure either bug is still particularly valid (one is against FC4, the other looks like it should be resolved). If you can address the issues above, I think we can call bridge-utils APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:22:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:22:06 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091422.l19EM69Y003239@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225625: Merge Review: bridge-utils Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jima has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625 ------- Additional Comments from Jima Review time! :-) OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 43bbd2a67b59cac3e15d545f8b51df68 bridge-utils-1.1.tar.gz 43bbd2a67b59cac3e15d545f8b51df68 bridge-utils-1.1.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 2 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. The recommended value for BuildRoot is: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) You may want to use that. 2. rpmlint says: rpmlint on ./bridge-utils-1.1-2.fc7.src.rpm W: bridge-utils setup-not-quiet E: bridge-utils no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install Easily fixed. Add -q to %setup, and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" after %install. 3. Latest version not used http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=26089 says 1.2 is available (and has been since 2006-09-20). Please evaluate whether you should be using this release instead. 4. Bugs open There are two open bugs against this package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205810 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169723 I'm not sure either bug is still particularly valid (one is against FC4, the other looks like it should be resolved). If you can address the issues above, I think we can call bridge-utils APPROVED. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:22:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091422.l19EMFSQ003277@bugzilla.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: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 09:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Actually, strigiclient is not a search frontend, it's more like a daemon > configuration tool. I think it should have a desktop file and be in the menu (in > the configuration submenu maybe ?) Oh.. I misunderstood. Maybe "System" or something like would be good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:28:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:28:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091428.l19ESRiI003787@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |fnasser at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:39:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:39:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 187317] Review Request: mindi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091439.l19Ed7ob004797@bugzilla.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: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 ------- Additional Comments From bruno_cornec at hp.com 2007-02-09 09:39 EST ------- I've added -q and removed -n in the SPEC The packge still contained one binary file that I have now removed, so I'll now make the package noarch.rpm indeed. I'm still looking at why UTF-8 is incorrect. As soon as I have a new package ready for your analysis, I'll let you know. Thanks for your feedback. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:47:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:47:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091447.l19ElMgB006244@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 09:47 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147773) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147773&action=view) Mock build log of ntfs-config-0.5.2-1.fc7 Mockbuild of ntfs-config-0.5.2-1 fails on FC-devel i386. It seems that many needes BuildRequires are missing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:52:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:52:27 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091452.l19EqRea006976@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225822: Merge Review: gnome-media Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola has granted Bastien Nocera 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales correctly * Build dependencies properly listed * Source file matches upstream's 094a92f01a3581de7b3567f85320df7b gnome-media-2.17.90.tar.bz2 * Own its files and directories correctly rpmlint warnings/error: This can mostly be ignored [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7.src.rpm W: gnome-media unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnome [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-devel-2.17.90-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-media-devel no-documentation However I wonder if it's not just OK to drop that Obsoletes on gnome, it seems superfluous of gnome-media to Obsolete gnome as it cannot also provide it (gnome). I believe you can fix that, so APPROVED. APPROVED. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:52:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:52:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225822] Merge Review: gnome-media In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091452.l19EqT3J006998@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225822 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dakingun at gmail.com |bnocera at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-09 09:52 EST ------- GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Spec file clean and legible * Handles locales correctly * Build dependencies properly listed * Source file matches upstream's 094a92f01a3581de7b3567f85320df7b gnome-media-2.17.90.tar.bz2 * Own its files and directories correctly rpmlint warnings/error: This can mostly be ignored [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: gnome-media obsolete-not-provided gnome W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/CDDB-Slave2.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-audio-profiles.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-cd.schemas W: gnome-media conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-volume-control.schemas [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-2.17.90-6.fc7.src.rpm W: gnome-media unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnome [deji at agape reviews]$ rpmlint gnome-media-devel-2.17.90-6.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: gnome-media-devel no-documentation However I wonder if it's not just OK to drop that Obsoletes on gnome, it seems superfluous of gnome-media to Obsolete gnome as it cannot also provide it (gnome). I believe you can fix that, so APPROVED. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 14:55:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 09:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091455.l19EtuIA007273@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hdparm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 karsten at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-09 09:55 EST ------- ok, fixed in hdparm-6_9-3. I've added smp flags although it doesn't really matter with just 2 .c files and a built time of <3 secs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:11:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:11:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091511.l19FBhUx008837@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hdparm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|karsten at redhat.com |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-09 10:11 EST ------- I know and I agree with you. It's a matter of consistency among packages... and maybe even insurance for the future. I'll review after the servers sync. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:17:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:17:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091517.l19FHQIK009195@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bridge-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625 ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-09 10:17 EST ------- Other notes on the bump to 1.2: You can (well, need to) drop patches 1-5, as they've been merged upstream, and you need to add a BR and call to autoconf before %configure, since they didn't ship a pre-made configure script in 1.2. Just a reminder for when you get back. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:18:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:18:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091518.l19FITbS009293@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-09 10:18 EST ------- yeah, my bad, forgot to upload fixed files. it'll done to night -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:20:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:20:13 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226402] Merge Review: SDL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091520.l19FKDtp009464@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226402: Merge Review: SDL Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Hans de Goede has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226402 ------- Additional Comments from Hans de Goede I'm behind a windows machine ATM, so no full review, but a few items to fix and a few questions to get started: SHOULDFIX items: * replace "--x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib}" with "--x-includes=%{_includedir} --x-libraries=%{_libdir} * BuildRequires: nasm should be: %ifarch %{ix86}, I doubt ppc owners will be amused when they try to rebuild SDL from srpm for some reason and then need to install nasm. questions: * Why this? : "export tagname=CC" * Why add -O3 is there any bench mark proof this is benificial? * Since you now pass "--x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib}", to work around configure's X-detection, do you still need: BuildRequires imake and libXt-devel? * Does devel really Requires libXt-devel? I must say all in all a pretty good specfile, I've seen much worse (both in FE as in FC). An important question when moving on with this is what todo with current bz tickets against SDL. Quite a few of them seem legitimate and not all that hard to fix. I don't know however if open bz tickets should be concidered blockers for the review. I see that someone has made one of them block this ticket, but that can be removed. AFAIK there are no rules for this, we could ask the mailinglist but that usually leads to much ado about nothing. In my opninion we should try to fix as many BZ's against SDL as possible during this review, but not let them block the review, agreed? Which brings me to the next subject one of the main reasons why I've decided to review SDL and not just any package is because I'm very active in packaging games and gaming related libraries (allegro (ask jnovy), CLanLib 0.6 and 0.8, plib) and as an experiment in co-maintainer ship between (former) FE and FC maintainers I would like to become a co-maintainer of SDL. Judging from the current open BZ tickets against SDL, of which most seem easy to fix, currently other work has higher priorities then SDL, and thus you could use a hand. I don't know howto shape this co-maintainership for now I'll try to take a look at some of the open BZ tickets and write fixes for those, notice btw that bug 217389 already contains fix I've reviewed the fix and it looks good to me. Unfortunately I currently don't have internet access at home so I'll only be able to communicate about this mon, wed, thu and fri. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:20:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:20:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226402] Merge Review: SDL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091520.l19FKExY009472@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: SDL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226402 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-09 10:20 EST ------- I'm behind a windows machine ATM, so no full review, but a few items to fix and a few questions to get started: SHOULDFIX items: * replace "--x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib}" with "--x-includes=%{_includedir} --x-libraries=%{_libdir} * BuildRequires: nasm should be: %ifarch %{ix86}, I doubt ppc owners will be amused when they try to rebuild SDL from srpm for some reason and then need to install nasm. questions: * Why this? : "export tagname=CC" * Why add -O3 is there any bench mark proof this is benificial? * Since you now pass "--x-includes=/usr/include --x-libraries=/usr/%{_lib}", to work around configure's X-detection, do you still need: BuildRequires imake and libXt-devel? * Does devel really Requires libXt-devel? I must say all in all a pretty good specfile, I've seen much worse (both in FE as in FC). An important question when moving on with this is what todo with current bz tickets against SDL. Quite a few of them seem legitimate and not all that hard to fix. I don't know however if open bz tickets should be concidered blockers for the review. I see that someone has made one of them block this ticket, but that can be removed. AFAIK there are no rules for this, we could ask the mailinglist but that usually leads to much ado about nothing. In my opninion we should try to fix as many BZ's against SDL as possible during this review, but not let them block the review, agreed? Which brings me to the next subject one of the main reasons why I've decided to review SDL and not just any package is because I'm very active in packaging games and gaming related libraries (allegro (ask jnovy), CLanLib 0.6 and 0.8, plib) and as an experiment in co-maintainer ship between (former) FE and FC maintainers I would like to become a co-maintainer of SDL. Judging from the current open BZ tickets against SDL, of which most seem easy to fix, currently other work has higher priorities then SDL, and thus you could use a hand. I don't know howto shape this co-maintainership for now I'll try to take a look at some of the open BZ tickets and write fixes for those, notice btw that bug 217389 already contains fix I've reviewed the fix and it looks good to me. Unfortunately I currently don't have internet access at home so I'll only be able to communicate about this mon, wed, thu and fri. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:22:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:22:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091522.l19FM399009706@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 ------- Additional Comments From apodtele at ucsd.edu 2007-02-09 10:22 EST ------- Still confused. What about 8.11 with much better international support? Current offering pales in comparison. I don't know what was the reason to "upgrade" to old tiny set. ftp://mirror.cs.wisc.edu/pub/mirrors/ghost/fonts/ghostscript-fonts-std-8.11.tar.gz This has been raised before in bug 203369 and bug 113866. These are GPL. We are not in freeze yet. Why would you refuse them now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:27:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:27:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225826] Merge Review: gnome-netstatus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091527.l19FR5vs010046@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-netstatus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225826 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dakingun at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-09 10:27 EST ------- Hi, NEEDSWORK: * Fail to build in mock (rawhide x86_64), seems to need a BR on libxslt; << make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0/help' xsltproc -o gnome-netstatus-C.omf --stringparam db2omf.basename gnome-netstatus --stringparam db2omf.format 'docbook' --stringparam db2omf.dtd "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.1.2//EN" --stringparam db2omf.lang C --stringparam db2omf.omf_dir "/usr/share/omf" --stringparam db2omf.help_dir "/usr/share/gnome/help" --stringparam db2omf.omf_in "`pwd`/./gnome-netstatus.omf.in" `/usr/bin/pkg-config --variable db2omf gnome-doc-utils` C/gnome-netstatus.xml db2omf: Could not construct the OMF maintainer element. Add an author, corpauthor, editor, othercredit, or publisher element with the role attribute set to "maintainer" to gnome-netstatus.xml. make[2]: *** [gnome-netstatus-C.omf] Error 10 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0/help' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59866 (%build) >> * The BuildRoot tag is very short, it doesn't conform to the packaging guildelines * Is "Prereq: gtk2 >..." neccesary at all? And also the explicit Requires on gtk2, libglade2, libgnomeui, and gnome-panel * Not very sure about this (since the build failed for me half-way), does the build really depends on gnome-vfs2, maybe that BR ought to be gnome-vfs2-devel. * Packaging guildelines discourage the use of '%makeinstall' macro, but advises using 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:27:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:27:04 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225826] Merge Review: gnome-netstatus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091527.l19FR4A2010036@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225826: Merge Review: gnome-netstatus Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola has denied Deji Akingunola 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225826 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola Hi, NEEDSWORK: * Fail to build in mock (rawhide x86_64), seems to need a BR on libxslt; << make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0/help' xsltproc -o gnome-netstatus-C.omf --stringparam db2omf.basename gnome-netstatus --stringparam db2omf.format 'docbook' --stringparam db2omf.dtd "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.1.2//EN" --stringparam db2omf.lang C --stringparam db2omf.omf_dir "/usr/share/omf" --stringparam db2omf.help_dir "/usr/share/gnome/help" --stringparam db2omf.omf_in "`pwd`/./gnome-netstatus.omf.in" `/usr/bin/pkg-config --variable db2omf gnome-doc-utils` C/gnome-netstatus.xml db2omf: Could not construct the OMF maintainer element. Add an author, corpauthor, editor, othercredit, or publisher element with the role attribute set to "maintainer" to gnome-netstatus.xml. make[2]: *** [gnome-netstatus-C.omf] Error 10 make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0/help' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gnome-netstatus-2.12.0' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.59866 (%build) >> * The BuildRoot tag is very short, it doesn't conform to the packaging guildelines * Is "Prereq: gtk2 >..." neccesary at all? And also the explicit Requires on gtk2, libglade2, libgnomeui, and gnome-panel * Not very sure about this (since the build failed for me half-way), does the build really depends on gnome-vfs2, maybe that BR ought to be gnome-vfs2-devel. * Packaging guildelines discourage the use of '%makeinstall' macro, but advises using 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' instead. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:31:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:31:40 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226002] Merge Review: libevent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091531.l19FVeZs010550@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226002: Merge Review: libevent Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jima has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226002 ------- Additional Comments from Jima Starting review... From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:31:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:31:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226002] Merge Review: libevent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091531.l19FVfBP010558@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libevent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226002 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jima at beer.tclug.org Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-09 10:31 EST ------- Starting review... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:39:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:39:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 187317] Review Request: mindi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091539.l19FdXpE011379@bugzilla.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: mindi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317 ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-09 10:39 EST ------- > I'm still looking at why UTF-8 is incorrect. Open the spec file in "less", you'll see accented caracters stand out in changelog entries for 1.0.7-1.fc5 and 1.06-1.fc5 (R?my and S?bastien). By the way, the spec file changelog should only contain packaging changes, not the application's changelog. That should only be in the ChangeLog file, installed in %doc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:45:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:45:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091545.l19FjmbQ011928@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-09 10:45 EST ------- updated. http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-2.src.rpm - add -soname versioning on shared libs - remove pl lang from spec - fix packing of libs - tcl is plugin dont separate package name +rpmlint report zero bugs. +mock can build it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:47:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:47:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091547.l19Flwo8012084@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|roozbeh at farsiweb.info |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-09 10:47 EST ------- Leaving the rest of the review to other people, as I can't say I understand all the story of the different versions and licenses. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:51:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:51:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225827] Merge Review: gnome-nettool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091551.l19FpQrQ012318@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-nettool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225827 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dakingun at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-09 10:51 EST ------- Hi, NEEDSWORK: * Post and postun requires on desktop-file-utils are not necesary * why does it need to run 'update-desktop-database' in it post and postun, the desktop file deosn't seem to contain any mimetype key (admittedly, I only checked src/gnome-nettool.desktop.in) * The '--add-category X-Red-Hat-Base' can also be removed from the desktop-file-install, its redundant. * Packaging guildelines discourage using the '%makeinstall' macro (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:51:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:51:25 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225827] Merge Review: gnome-nettool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091551.l19FpPef012300@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225827: Merge Review: gnome-nettool Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Deji Akingunola has denied Deji Akingunola 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225827 ------- Additional Comments from Deji Akingunola Hi, NEEDSWORK: * Post and postun requires on desktop-file-utils are not necesary * why does it need to run 'update-desktop-database' in it post and postun, the desktop file deosn't seem to contain any mimetype key (admittedly, I only checked src/gnome-nettool.desktop.in) * The '--add-category X-Red-Hat-Base' can also be removed from the desktop-file-install, its redundant. * Packaging guildelines discourage using the '%makeinstall' macro (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbc fbdd2fcb7791dd002) From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:59:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:59:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091559.l19FxPpA013016@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(niles at rickniles.co| |m) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:59:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:59:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091559.l19FxhB9013054@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fitzsim at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 15:59:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:59:42 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091559.l19Fxgms013046@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225932: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Thomas Fitzsimmons has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932 From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:02:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:02:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091602.l19G2m3X013253@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 11:02 EST ------- Well, for rpmlint issues: * spurious-executable-perm * doc-file-dependency --------------------------------------------- W: tmda spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/tmda-1.1.9/contrib/printdbm W: tmda doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/tmda-1.1.9/contrib/update-internaldomains /usr/bin/env --------------------------------------------- - You may have confused about these messages, however --------------------------------------------- $ rpmlint -I spurious-executable-perm spurious-executable-perm : The file is installed *with executable permissions*, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. $ rpmlint -I doc-file-dependency doc-file-dependency : An included file marked as %doc creates a possible additional dependency in the package. Usually, this is not wanted and may be caused by eg. example scripts *with executable bits set* included in the package's documentation. ------------------------------------- so please ensure that %doc files do not have executable permissions. * zero-length ------------------------------------- E: tmda zero-length /usr/share/doc/tmda-1.1.9/contrib/dot-tmda/lists/blacklist ------------------------------------- - How do empty documents make sense? * User home directory ------------------------------------- E: tmda-ofmipd use-tmp-in-%pre ------------------------------------- > (%pre creates user with /var/tmp as home > directory - %pre does not use /tmp) Usually this should be %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} or something else (see xorg-x11-xfs or ntp, for example) * userdel, groupdel... ------------------------------------- /usr/sbin/userdel ofmipd >/dev/null 2>&1 || : /usr/sbin/groupdel ofmipd >/dev/null 2>&1 || : ------------------------------------- - Still under discussion, however, as far as I know current Fedora policy is that "some dangerous commands like userdel or so should not automatically done and should executed by sysadmin with care". * init script recording ------------------------------------- W: tmda-ofmipd service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/tofmipd ------------------------------------- Well, if you don't have a strong reason you want to enable tofmipd daemon by default, please the line ------------------------------------- # chkconfig: 2345 87 13 ------------------------------------- in %{_initrddir}/tofmipd to ------------------------------------- # chkconfig: - 87 13 ------------------------------------- * init daemon reload ------------------------------------- W: tmda-ofmipd no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/tofmipd ------------------------------------- - Just change ------------------------------------- restart) ------------------------------------- in %{_initrddir}/tofmipd to ------------------------------------- restart|reload) ------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:18:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:18:14 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091618.l19GIEdJ014856@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225625: Merge Review: bridge-utils Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jima has denied Jima 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625 ------- Additional Comments from Jima *punts the ball back to dwmw2* From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:18:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:18:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225625] Merge Review: bridge-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091618.l19GIP9v014873@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bridge-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225625 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-09 11:18 EST ------- *punts the ball back to dwmw2* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:19:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:19:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091619.l19GJv81015130@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 11:19 EST ------- Well, who is the current submitter?? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:26:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:26:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223657] Review Request: PerceptualDiff - An image comparison utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091626.l19GQKQN016170@bugzilla.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: PerceptualDiff - An image comparison utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223657 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(cgtobi at gmail.com) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 11:26 EST ------- setting needinfo (when you are back from exam, please let us know). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:26:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:26:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091626.l19GQZsL016201@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 fnasser at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fnasser at redhat.com |fitzsim at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-09 11:26 EST ------- 1) W.r.t. Groups, please see the last message from 'spot' in the fedora-packaging list: "You can put whatever you would like in the Group field. Its not regulated in Fedora whatsoever. ~spot" That rpmlint warning is to be ignored as the Group use is actually deprecated and will be replaced by a new mechanism with the RPM revamping project. 2) W.r.t. the javadoc code it is the current mechanism used at JPackage and Fedora 6 for allowing multiple versions of a software and its documentation to be installed. I have unearthed upstream a proposal that would simplify this in future JPackage releases, but current all Java paqckages that have -javadocs use the above code. Although I also want that code to be simplified, and I hope it will, it is not using anything explicitly forbidden by the current Fedora Guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:28:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:28:18 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226002] Merge Review: libevent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091628.l19GSIUw016363@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226002: Merge Review: libevent Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jima has denied Jima 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226002 ------- Additional Comments from Jima OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 6cc776458ecaf9247550863702a44d7c libevent-1.1a.tar.gz 6cc776458ecaf9247550863702a44d7c libevent-1.1a.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. See below - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 1 bug - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. rpmlint says: W: libevent incoherent-version-in-changelog control 1.1a-3.2.1 I'd recommend fixing the broken changelog entry from Jesse Keating's bump-n-build script. (Seconded by Jesse.) 2. Dist tag Appending "%{?dist}" to the Release field is recommended. Not a blocker, but it'd be nice. 3. Not latest version Upstream web site indicates 1.2a is the latest version (released 2006-12-02). Please evaluate as to whether upgrading might be for the best. 4. Bugs open: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204990 If you can address the above, I don't see any reason why libevent can't be approved for merging. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:28:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:28:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226002] Merge Review: libevent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091628.l19GSU8n016392@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libevent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226002 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jima at beer.tclug.org |steved at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-09 11:28 EST ------- OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 6cc776458ecaf9247550863702a44d7c libevent-1.1a.tar.gz 6cc776458ecaf9247550863702a44d7c libevent-1.1a.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. See below - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 1 bug - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. rpmlint says: W: libevent incoherent-version-in-changelog control 1.1a-3.2.1 I'd recommend fixing the broken changelog entry from Jesse Keating's bump-n-build script. (Seconded by Jesse.) 2. Dist tag Appending "%{?dist}" to the Release field is recommended. Not a blocker, but it'd be nice. 3. Not latest version Upstream web site indicates 1.2a is the latest version (released 2006-12-02). Please evaluate as to whether upgrading might be for the best. 4. Bugs open: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204990 If you can address the above, I don't see any reason why libevent can't be approved for merging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:29:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:29:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091629.l19GTcOw016485@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-09 11:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18) > For me -5 seems okay, just one question. > - Why does some tcl files have executable permission with shebang, > while some don't? Should all files should have both (i.e. > executable permission with shebang) or all files should not, > or current state has some meaning? (I think this may not a > big issue, however, I just want to know what is occurring here). I did some tests and concluded that I can chmod -x those rpmlint shebangs. Parag do you want me to dump another release ? > = A note: > copyright.ps disappeared. While copyright.ps seems to say that > this is MIT, however, as long as I read bug 226715, upstream want > to claim that this is GPL. So currently copyright.ps can be ignored > (my recognition is that the upstream of irsim and magic is the > same, is this correct?). Yes it's the same upstream : http://opencircuitdesign.com/ Magic is the last one on the list to pave in fedora repositories :) The below apps are mantained by http://opencircuitdesign.com/ * Magic, the VLSI layout editor, extraction, and DRC tool. * XCircuit, the circuit drawing and schematic capture tool. * IRSIM, the switch-level digital circuit simulator. * Netgen, the circuit netlist comparison (LVS) and netlist conversion tool. * PCB, the printed circuit board layout editor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:35:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:35:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225875] Merge Review: gtksourceview In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091635.l19GZ5pR017122@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gtksourceview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225875 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-09 11:35 EST ------- the package must own %{_datadir}/gtk-doc and %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html or depend on something that does? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:35:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:35:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091635.l19GZJZZ017155@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 11:35 EST ------- Well, the srpm on comment 5 gets 550... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:38:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:38:28 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091638.l19GcScI017313@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225928: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Thomas Fitzsimmons has granted Fernando Nasser 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 ------- Additional Comments from Thomas Fitzsimmons (In reply to comment #5) > 1) W.r.t. Groups, please see the last message from 'spot' in the > fedora-packaging list: > > "You can put whatever you would like in the Group field. Its not > regulated in Fedora whatsoever. > ~spot" > > That rpmlint warning is to be ignored as the Group use is actually deprecated > and will be replaced by a new mechanism with the RPM revamping project. OK. > > 2) W.r.t. the javadoc code it is the current mechanism used at JPackage and > Fedora 6 for allowing multiple versions of a software and its documentation to > be installed. I have unearthed upstream a proposal that would simplify this in > future JPackage releases, but current all Java paqckages that have -javadocs use > the above code. > > Although I also want that code to be simplified, and I hope it will, it is not > using anything explicitly forbidden by the current Fedora Guidelines. OK. APPROVED. Now we're supposed to leave this bug report open until the merged Fedora build system comes online. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:38:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:38:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091638.l19GcTE0017325@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |fnasser at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-09 11:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > 1) W.r.t. Groups, please see the last message from 'spot' in the > fedora-packaging list: > > "You can put whatever you would like in the Group field. Its not > regulated in Fedora whatsoever. > ~spot" > > That rpmlint warning is to be ignored as the Group use is actually deprecated > and will be replaced by a new mechanism with the RPM revamping project. OK. > > 2) W.r.t. the javadoc code it is the current mechanism used at JPackage and > Fedora 6 for allowing multiple versions of a software and its documentation to > be installed. I have unearthed upstream a proposal that would simplify this in > future JPackage releases, but current all Java paqckages that have -javadocs use > the above code. > > Although I also want that code to be simplified, and I hope it will, it is not > using anything explicitly forbidden by the current Fedora Guidelines. OK. APPROVED. Now we're supposed to leave this bug report open until the merged Fedora build system comes online. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:41:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:41:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091641.l19Gf7SC017613@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-09 11:41 EST ------- updated. Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.3-1.src.rpm more review over Request. To summ up: * Fri Feb 09 2007 Balint Cristian 6.2.1-3 - fix more nits in specs * Wed Feb 07 2007 Balint Cristian 6.2.1-2 - fix nits in specs - disable static libs pack - use macros in file lists if possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:41:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:41:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225826] Merge Review: gnome-netstatus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091641.l19GfHmj017637@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-netstatus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225826 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-09 11:41 EST ------- I've done some cleanups in the spec now. libxslt gets pulled in by gnome-doc-utils, your problem is something else. I'll see if the buildsystem is more successful in getting it built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:41:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:41:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091641.l19GfO1d017662@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-09 11:41 EST ------- updated. Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.3-3.src.rpm more review over Request. To summ up: * Fri Feb 09 2007 Balint Cristian 6.2.1-3 - fix more nits in specs * Wed Feb 07 2007 Balint Cristian 6.2.1-2 - fix nits in specs - disable static libs pack - use macros in file lists if possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:41:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:41:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225745] Merge Review: fedora-logos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091641.l19Gfej0017714@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-logos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225745 ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-09 11:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > So, whats the next step here ? Someone should take the package for review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:41:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:41:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225826] Merge Review: gnome-netstatus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091641.l19GfrwK017741@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-netstatus https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225826 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 16:50:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:50:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091650.l19Go4rA018481@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-09 11:50 EST ------- Is Rick Niles (niles at rickniles.com) I just helped him to fix that package, since 2007-01-11 nothing happened, Rick doesn't updated the package, and this is blocker for grass + gdal. Basicly it required a mass rework of evrithing inside .spec and the source to align to nowdays standards. Anyway, Tasaka, John can review it PLS ? Maybe would be better Tasaka to review it since he is reviewing all deps for grass. Or have to resubmit from scratch for this ? /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:00:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:00:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091700.l19H0dDe019356@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-09 12:00 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Now we're supposed to leave this bug report open until the merged Fedora build > system comes online. I just talked with Warren. The procedure is to build the package in Brew. Then when I've confirmed that the updated package has hit Rawhide, I'll close this bug as "RAWHIDE". So please go ahead and rebuild this package in Brew. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:02:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:02:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091702.l19H2lOx019728@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com 2007-02-09 12:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > - rpmlint checks return: > > > > W: autofs no-url-tag > > > > Is there any? > > Not really. > > I registered autofs.net and started a wiki (wiki.autofs.net) > but it needs quite a bit of care and attention. We could use > it anyway. Have a look and see what you think. I would list it. > > > > W: autofs unversioned-explicit-obsoletes autofs-ldap > > The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all > > older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update > > problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it > > was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if > > possible. > > Not sure but I believe this was added when going from > autofs version 3 to autofs version 4 and all versions > of autofs-ldap needed to be obsoleted. Probably good > to keep this. This seems to have happened in the RH6.2/7.0 time frame (~autofs 3.1.5/6), and I'd would argue that it's long past its usefulness. It also triggers: E: autofs obsolete-not-provided autofs-ldap The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths and not to break dependencies. Other rpmlint: W: autofs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/autofs A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. - Shouldn't be marked as %config. You could also use the %{_initrd} macro for the diretory here and elsewhere in the spec. E: autofs executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/auto.net E: autofs executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/auto.smb - But these are okay - expected to be modified and not required for operation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:06:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:06:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091706.l19H6Yu1020082@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 12:06 EST ------- Umm.. current fedora policy is that "we have to wait one month plus one week at most for submitter's response"... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews Well, actually I want to have all packages required by grass reviewed by someone (including me). John, what do you think of current status? Anyway I go to sleep because it is 2AM in Japan now. By the way.. what is PLS? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:15:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:15:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227570] Review Request: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091715.l19HFmTL020897@bugzilla.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: calc - Arbitrary precision arithmetic system and calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227570 ------- Additional Comments From mattdm at mattdm.org 2007-02-09 12:15 EST ------- Okay, so upstream is now aware of and working on the above issue. I expect a pretty quick resolution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:17:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:17:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091717.l19HHh8L021112@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-09 12:17 EST ------- >Anyway I go to sleep because it is 2AM in Japan now. No problem. tommorow is a day too. Till than i will come up with geotiff-less version of gdal. >By the way.. what is PLS? PLS is please. I am sorry if i confuse with my abreviation, i will avoid it ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:18:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:18:18 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091718.l19HIIHI021167@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226366: Merge Review: regexp Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Andrew Overholt has denied Andrew Overholt 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 ------- Additional Comments from Andrew Overholt (In reply to comment #3) > Can you set the assigned and flags as you see fit? Definitely. I totally forgot about the new flag-based reviews. Sorry. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:18:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:18:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091718.l19HIeO0021219@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-09 12:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Can you set the assigned and flags as you see fit? Definitely. I totally forgot about the new flag-based reviews. Sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:19:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:19:17 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091719.l19HJH3a021257@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225306: Merge Review: avalon-logkit Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Andrew Overholt has denied Andrew Overholt 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:19:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091719.l19HJdDY021297@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: avalon-logkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:27:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:27:21 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091727.l19HRLrR022211@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225932: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Thomas Fitzsimmons has granted Thomas Fitzsimmons 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932 ------- Additional Comments from Thomas Fitzsimmons MUST: * is this appropriate for Fedora? X rpmlint on all rpms gives no output $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm W: jakarta-commons-launcher non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm W: jakarta-commons-launcher non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc percent-in-%postun W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-debuginfo-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm These are all OK for the reasons Fernando cites here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 But this one is a bug: W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc percent-in-%postun You need this patch: --- jakarta-commons-launcher.spec 9 Feb 2007 03:56:28 -0000 1.16 +++ jakarta-commons-launcher.spec 9 Feb 2007 17:06:05 -0000 @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ fi %if %{gcj_support} -%{post} +%post if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ] then %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ %endif %if %{gcj_support} -%{postun} +%postun if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ] then %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db * package is named appropriately * specfile name matches %{name} * package meets packaging guidelines. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English * specfile is legible * source files match upstream * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper * find_lang usage correct * package is not relocatable * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * no large docs so no -doc subpackage * %doc files don't affect runtime * gcj .so files need not be in a -devel sub-package * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine * binary RPMs function on x86 * final provides and requires are sane SHOULD: * package includes license text * description and summary sections don't have translations (OK) * package builds in mock * package builds on i386 * package functions as described X scriptlets should be sane See above about fixing %{post} and %{postun} references. * no -devel package * no pkgconfig files I'm marking this as fedora-review+. Please build the fixed packages into Brew. Once they hit Rawhide, I'll close this RAWHIDE. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 17:27:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:27:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091727.l19HRWHU022266@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-09 12:27 EST ------- MUST: * is this appropriate for Fedora? X rpmlint on all rpms gives no output $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm W: jakarta-commons-launcher non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm W: jakarta-commons-launcher non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc percent-in-%postun W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-debuginfo-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm These are all OK for the reasons Fernando cites here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 But this one is a bug: W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc percent-in-%postun You need this patch: --- jakarta-commons-launcher.spec 9 Feb 2007 03:56:28 -0000 1.16 +++ jakarta-commons-launcher.spec 9 Feb 2007 17:06:05 -0000 @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ fi %if %{gcj_support} -%{post} +%post if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ] then %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ %endif %if %{gcj_support} -%{postun} +%postun if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ] then %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db * package is named appropriately * specfile name matches %{name} * package meets packaging guidelines. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English * specfile is legible * source files match upstream * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper * find_lang usage correct * package is not relocatable * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * no large docs so no -doc subpackage * %doc files don't affect runtime * gcj .so files need not be in a -devel sub-package * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine * binary RPMs function on x86 * final provides and requires are sane SHOULD: * package includes license text * description and summary sections don't have translations (OK) * package builds in mock * package builds on i386 * package functions as described X scriptlets should be sane See above about fixing %{post} and %{postun} references. * no -devel package * no pkgconfig files I'm marking this as fedora-review+. Please build the fixed packages into Brew. Once they hit Rawhide, I'll close this RAWHIDE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 18:07:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:07:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225745] Merge Review: fedora-logos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091807.l19I7uEM026538@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-logos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225745 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-09 13:07 EST ------- Well, you started a review and left a - behind, so it was not very clear that you don't intend to continue :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 18:34:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225345] Review Request: kodos - Visual regular expression editor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091834.l19IYTKr029769@bugzilla.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: kodos - Visual regular expression editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225345 orion at cora.nwra.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(icon at fedoraproject | |.org) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 19:03:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 14:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091903.l19J3hfi032520@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-09 14:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > MUST: > X rpmlint on regexp srpm gives no output > W: regexp non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ? It seems use of the existing group is acceptable: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html > X package meets packaging guidelines. > . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Amended. > . do we need section free? Its a redundant JPackage artifact, removed. > X specfile is legible > . do we still need the crazy gcj_support line? AFAICR the incantation was added so native compilation (i.e. arch dependence) could be specified on a build machine directly without the need to modify spec files. However, brew prevents the use of machine specific settings, hence the use of the %define at the top. However, if the packages are built on mock, such settings can be provided on the build machine and the hardcoded %define can be removed. > X source files match upstream > . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the > tar.gz. Really? With Source0:http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/regexp/jakarta-regexp-%{version}.tar.gz wget http://www.apache.org/dist/jakarta/regexp/jakarta-regexp-1.4.tar.gz brings in the tar ball fine for me. Note the replacement of %{version} in the URL. Surely the use of the macro is not a problem? > X BuildRequires are proper > . why is jpackage-utils in Requires(pre,post)? According to the guidelines, all directories created by the package must be owned by the package or the package must require a package that provides the directory. Directories like %{_javadir} and %{_javadocdir} (/usr/share/java, /usr/share/javadoc) are provided by jpackage-utils and since the package tries to install/uninstall things to these directories, I think the presence of these directories ought to be mandated for the package to be installed/uninstalled. > X package owns all directories and files > . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the > %file section? Fixed. The %pre and %post scriptlets for the javadoc are there for multiple versions of the javadoc package to coexist and the unversioned symlink allows crosslinking of javadocs. > X final provides and requires are sane > Do we need a 'java' dependency somewhere? Does the (erroneous, I think) > Requires(pre,post) on jpackage-utils imply a regular Requires on it? Do we > need things in coreutils (rpm, ln) in Requires(post,postun)? Added the Requires on java The Requires(x) on jpackage-utils has been commented on above. As far as the question of /bin/rm and /bin/ln in the requires(x) is concerned, this is to ensure that rpm transactions ensure these are present before the installation/uninstallation of the package since the %pre and %postun scripts use them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 19:07:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 14:07:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091907.l19J7d0K000433@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 19:15:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 14:15:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091915.l19JFJvV001530@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-09 14:15 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147796) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147796&action=view) auto-mode-alist, magic-mode-alist dumps C-h f xml-mode: xml-mode is an alias for `sgml-mode' in `textmodes/sgml-mode.el'. $ rpm -qf /usr/share/emacs/22.0.93/lisp/textmodes/sgml-mode.elc emacs-common-22.0.93-4.cmn6.i386 That's a Rawhide Emacs locally rebuilt for FC6. I've already tried changing the order of the nxml-mode and sgml-mode auto-mode-alist associations, to no avail, so it's not that. And nxml-mode is the only thing in my auto-mode-alist that is associated with *.xhtml files, yet they open in xml-mode (ie. "XHTML" in the modeline). That's why I suggested magic-mode-alist might be interfering in comment 3. See attached cleaned up typescript; the first part contains dumps of auto-mode-alist and magic-mode-alist with the as-is nxml-init.el, and the latter part the dump of auto-mode-alist after modifying nxml-init.el to append instead of prepending its auto-mode-alist modifications. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 19:17:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 14:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 213662] Review Request: openmpi - Upstream MPI package with native InfiniBand support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091917.l19JHoZc001848@bugzilla.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: openmpi - Upstream MPI package with native InfiniBand support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213662 orion at cora.nwra.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|188265 | nThis| | -- 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 Feb 9 19:28:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 14:28:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091928.l19JSsUK003270@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-09 14:28 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #2) > > MUST: > > X rpmlint on regexp srpm gives no output > > W: regexp non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ? > It seems use of the existing group is acceptable: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html Okay. > > X source files match upstream > > . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the > > tar.gz. > Really? Sorry, I accidentally copied that from another review :) > > X BuildRequires are proper > > . why is jpackage-utils in Requires(pre,post)? > According to the guidelines, all directories created by the package must be > owned by the package Yes, I agree with your reasoning but let's just remove the javadoc symlinking in %post{,un} and then these requirements can go away. > > X package owns all directories and files > > . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the > > %file section? > Fixed. The %pre and %post scriptlets for the javadoc are there for multiple > versions of the javadoc package to coexist and the unversioned symlink allows > crosslinking of javadocs. I don't think this is worth the complexity of the the %posts. Do you agree? > > X final provides and requires are sane > > Do we need a 'java' dependency somewhere? Does the (erroneous, I think) > > Requires(pre,post) on jpackage-utils imply a regular Requires on it? Do we > > need things in coreutils (rpm, ln) in Requires(post,postun)? > Added the Requires on java Great, thanks. > As far as the > question of /bin/rm and /bin/ln in the requires(x) is concerned, this is to > ensure that rpm transactions ensure these are present before the > installation/uninstallation of the package since the %pre and %postun scripts > use them. Yeah, I'm just not sure if things in coreutils need to be worried about for Requires(post,postun). I'll ask on fedora-packaging and we can go from there. Thanks, Vivek. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 19:35:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 14:35:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702091935.l19JZEFc003720@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 20:12:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:12:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092012.l19KCHFO007396@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932 ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-09 15:12 EST ------- %post and %postun fixed in rawhide and rebuilt in brew. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 20:27:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:27:46 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226201] Merge Review: nmap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092027.l19KRkfU008962@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226201: Merge Review: nmap Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jima has denied Jima 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226201 ------- Additional Comments from Jima OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: ea50419f99472200c4184a304e3831ea nmap-4.20.tar.bz2 ea50419f99472200c4184a304e3831ea nmap-4.20.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 0 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. 1. Not sure if this is a blocker, but the standard format for defattr now is: %defattr(-,root,root,-) People I've talked to have had the opinion that it's a "should." 2. The recommended BuildRoot is: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. rpmlint says: rpmlint on nmap-4.20-2.fc7.src.rpm W: nmap mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 56, tab: line 62) W: nmap patch-not-applied Patch1: makefile.patch W: nmap patch-not-applied Patch0: inet_aton.patch The first one is easy enough to fix if you want to change the multiple spaces on lines 56-59 to tabs; I don't believe it's a blocker, though. I don't believe the other two are, either, but if you're done with the patches... :-) Also, I had a couple other concerns about the package. First off, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbc fbdd2fcb7791dd002 I've successfully tested the package with this change: -%makeinstall nmapdatadir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/nmap +make install nmapdatadir=%{_datadir}/nmap DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT Secondly, there's a pretty major mistake in nmap-4.20-nostrip.patch. As I said in an email to Florian La Roche (who, as far as I can tell, added that patch): --- snip --- In your effort to remove -s's from install lines, you also made this effective change: -$(SHTOOL) mkln -f -s $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/nmapfe $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/xnmap +$(SHTOOL) mkln -f $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/nmapfe $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/xnmap Which has this annoying effect on the build: ln: `nmapfe': hard link not allowed for directory ... RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/nmap-root/usr/bin/xnmap I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to do. :-) I fixed the patch in my local copy and threw it against my buildsys and it worked fine. Just thought I'd let you know. --- snip --- So, please, add the -s back to the `mkln` part of that line. The build fails otherwise. :-P In closing, if you could address the above issues, I think nmap should be cleared for merging. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 20:27:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:27:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226201] Merge Review: nmap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092027.l19KRvBm008992@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nmap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226201 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |harald at redhat.com CC| |jima at beer.tclug.org Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-09 15:27 EST ------- OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: ea50419f99472200c4184a304e3831ea nmap-4.20.tar.bz2 ea50419f99472200c4184a304e3831ea nmap-4.20.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 0 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. 1. Not sure if this is a blocker, but the standard format for defattr now is: %defattr(-,root,root,-) People I've talked to have had the opinion that it's a "should." 2. The recommended BuildRoot is: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. rpmlint says: rpmlint on nmap-4.20-2.fc7.src.rpm W: nmap mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 56, tab: line 62) W: nmap patch-not-applied Patch1: makefile.patch W: nmap patch-not-applied Patch0: inet_aton.patch The first one is easy enough to fix if you want to change the multiple spaces on lines 56-59 to tabs; I don't believe it's a blocker, though. I don't believe the other two are, either, but if you're done with the patches... :-) Also, I had a couple other concerns about the package. First off, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002 I've successfully tested the package with this change: -%makeinstall nmapdatadir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/nmap +make install nmapdatadir=%{_datadir}/nmap DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT Secondly, there's a pretty major mistake in nmap-4.20-nostrip.patch. As I said in an email to Florian La Roche (who, as far as I can tell, added that patch): --- snip --- In your effort to remove -s's from install lines, you also made this effective change: -$(SHTOOL) mkln -f -s $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/nmapfe $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/xnmap +$(SHTOOL) mkln -f $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/nmapfe $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/xnmap Which has this annoying effect on the build: ln: `nmapfe': hard link not allowed for directory ... RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/nmap-root/usr/bin/xnmap I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to do. :-) I fixed the patch in my local copy and threw it against my buildsys and it worked fine. Just thought I'd let you know. --- snip --- So, please, add the -s back to the `mkln` part of that line. The build fails otherwise. :-P In closing, if you could address the above issues, I think nmap should be cleared for merging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 20:28:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:28:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092028.l19KSwLG009098@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: avalon-logkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-09 15:28 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > MUST: > X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output > > W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ? > It seems acceptable to use Development/Libraries/Java as the Group field, please see: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html > * package is named appropriately > * specfile name matches %{name} > X package meets packaging guidelines. > > . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot > > it should be: > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > Fixed. > . do we need section free? > Got rid of it. > * license field matches the actual license. > * license is open source-compatible. > * license text included in package and marked with %doc > * specfile written in American English > X specfile is legible > . do we still need the crazy gcj_support line? > Yes, please see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366#c5 > X source files match upstream > . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the > tar.gz. > Fixed Source0 URL. > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on > the other arches in Fedora Core presently) > > X BuildRequires are proper > . are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in Requires(post{,un})? > Yes, please see: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00076.html > * no locale data so no find_lang necessary > * package is not relocatable > X package owns all directories and files > . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the > %file section? Please see the second part of the following comment: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c5 > * no %files duplicates > * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present > * %clean present > * macro usage is consistent > * package contains code > * no large docs so no -doc subpackage > . javadoc package present > * %doc files don't affect runtime > * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. > * no pkgconfig or header files > * no -devel package > * no .la files > * no desktop file > * not a web app. > * file ownership fine > * final provides and requires are sane > > $ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm > avalon-logkit-1.2.jar.so > avalon-logkit = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7 > > $ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm > avalon-logkit-javadoc = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7 > > $ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm > /bin/sh > /bin/sh > avalon-framework >= 0:4.1.4 > java-gcj-compat > java-gcj-compat > jdbc-stdext > jms > libc.so.6 > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) > libdl.so.2 > libgcc_s.so.1 > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) > libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) > libgcj_bc.so.1 > libm.so.6 > libpthread.so.0 > librt.so.1 > libz.so.1 > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rtld(GNU_HASH) > servlet > > $ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm > /bin/ln > /bin/rm > /bin/rm > /bin/sh > /bin/sh > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > > > SHOULD: > * package includes license text > * package builds on i386 > ... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here > X package functions > . I don't know how to test this package I've built avalon-framework (which has avalon-logkit as a BuildRequire) and it builds fine. > X package builds in mock > my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems > here as the package currently builds fine in brew I did a scratch build in brew with the new spec file and it builds fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 20:54:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:54:12 -0500 Subject: fedora-review requested: [Bug 226298] Merge Review: pirut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092054.l19KsCHw010911@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226298: Merge Review: pirut Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jima has asked for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226298 ------- Additional Comments from Jima Starting review... From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 20:54:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:54:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226298] Merge Review: pirut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092054.l19KsDWK010920@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pirut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226298 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jima at beer.tclug.org Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-09 15:54 EST ------- Starting review... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:17:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:17:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225954] Merge Review: junit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092117.l19LHCXq013425@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: junit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225954 ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-09 16:17 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147809) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147809&action=view) Spec File -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:27:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:27:00 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092127.l19LR0ig014597@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225306: Merge Review: avalon-logkit Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Andrew Overholt has granted Andrew Overholt 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 ------- Additional Comments from Andrew Overholt (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > MUST: > > X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output > > > > W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > > > Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ? > > > > It seems acceptable to use Development/Libraries/Java as the Group field, please > see: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html Okay. > > X package meets packaging guidelines. > > > > . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot > > > > it should be: > > > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > > > Fixed. Great. > > . do we need section free? > > > > Got rid of it. Sweet. > > X specfile is legible > > . do we still need the crazy gcj_support line? > > > > Yes, please see: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366#c5 Okay. > > X source files match upstream > > . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the > > tar.gz. > > > > Fixed Source0 URL. Great. The md5sums now match. > > X BuildRequires are proper > > . are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in Requires(post{,un})? > > > > Yes, please see: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00076.html Yup, sounds good. > > X package owns all directories and files > > . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the > > %file section? > > Please see the second part of the following comment: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c5 Okay. I'd like to see this cleaned up but it isn't violating any rules so it's fine. > > SHOULD: > > X package functions > > . I don't know how to test this package > > I've built avalon-framework (which has avalon-logkit as a BuildRequire) and it > builds fine. Good. > > X package builds in mock > > my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems > > here as the package currently builds fine in brew > > I did a scratch build in brew with the new spec file and it builds fine. Awesome. APPROVED. Thanks, Permaine :) As per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c7 , please ebuild this package in Brew and when I've confirmed that the updated package has hit Rawhide, I'll close this bug as RAWHIDE. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:27:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:27:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092127.l19LR1U7014607@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: avalon-logkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-09 16:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > MUST: > > X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output > > > > W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > > > Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ? > > > > It seems acceptable to use Development/Libraries/Java as the Group field, please > see: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html Okay. > > X package meets packaging guidelines. > > > > . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot > > > > it should be: > > > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > > > Fixed. Great. > > . do we need section free? > > > > Got rid of it. Sweet. > > X specfile is legible > > . do we still need the crazy gcj_support line? > > > > Yes, please see: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366#c5 Okay. > > X source files match upstream > > . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the > > tar.gz. > > > > Fixed Source0 URL. Great. The md5sums now match. > > X BuildRequires are proper > > . are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in Requires(post{,un})? > > > > Yes, please see: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00076.html Yup, sounds good. > > X package owns all directories and files > > . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the > > %file section? > > Please see the second part of the following comment: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c5 Okay. I'd like to see this cleaned up but it isn't violating any rules so it's fine. > > SHOULD: > > X package functions > > . I don't know how to test this package > > I've built avalon-framework (which has avalon-logkit as a BuildRequire) and it > builds fine. Good. > > X package builds in mock > > my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems > > here as the package currently builds fine in brew > > I did a scratch build in brew with the new spec file and it builds fine. Awesome. APPROVED. Thanks, Permaine :) As per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c7 , please ebuild this package in Brew and when I've confirmed that the updated package has hit Rawhide, I'll close this bug as RAWHIDE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:39:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:39:31 -0500 Subject: fedora-review granted: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092139.l19LdVFG015711@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226366: Merge Review: regexp Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Andrew Overholt has granted Vivek Lakshmanan 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 ------- Additional Comments from Andrew Overholt (In reply to comment #6) > > > X source files match upstream > > > . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the > > > tar.gz. > > Really? > > Sorry, I accidentally copied that from another review :) The md5sums match. > > > X BuildRequires are proper > > > . why is jpackage-utils in Requires(pre,post)? > > According to the guidelines, all directories created by the package must be > > owned by the package > > Yes, I agree with your reasoning but let's just remove the javadoc symlinking in > %post{,un} and then these requirements can go away. Okay, this isn't holding up the review, but I still don't like it :). > > > X final provides and requires are sane > > > Do we need a 'java' dependency somewhere? Does the (erroneous, I think) > > > Requires(pre,post) on jpackage-utils imply a regular Requires on it? Do we > > > need things in coreutils (rpm, ln) in Requires(post,postun)? > > Added the Requires on java I asked about the Requires(x) on coreutils things and the answer was to err on the safe side so those are fine. I don't like the JPackage-style %{__rm} but again, that's not going to hold up the review. APPROVED. Thanks, Vivek! As per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c7 , please rebuild this package in Brew and when I've confirmed that the updated package has hit Rawhide, I'll close this bug as RAWHIDE. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:39:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:39:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092139.l19LdWf9015719@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-09 16:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > > > X source files match upstream > > > . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the > > > tar.gz. > > Really? > > Sorry, I accidentally copied that from another review :) The md5sums match. > > > X BuildRequires are proper > > > . why is jpackage-utils in Requires(pre,post)? > > According to the guidelines, all directories created by the package must be > > owned by the package > > Yes, I agree with your reasoning but let's just remove the javadoc symlinking in > %post{,un} and then these requirements can go away. Okay, this isn't holding up the review, but I still don't like it :). > > > X final provides and requires are sane > > > Do we need a 'java' dependency somewhere? Does the (erroneous, I think) > > > Requires(pre,post) on jpackage-utils imply a regular Requires on it? Do we > > > need things in coreutils (rpm, ln) in Requires(post,postun)? > > Added the Requires on java I asked about the Requires(x) on coreutils things and the answer was to err on the safe side so those are fine. I don't like the JPackage-style %{__rm} but again, that's not going to hold up the review. APPROVED. Thanks, Vivek! As per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c7 , please rebuild this package in Brew and when I've confirmed that the updated package has hit Rawhide, I'll close this bug as RAWHIDE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:42:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:42:17 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 226298] Merge Review: pirut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092142.l19LgH2d016087@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 226298: Merge Review: pirut Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Jima has denied Jima 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226298 ------- Additional Comments from Jima OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: a8f5de528d0491ccbaed671063200521 pirut-1.2.10.tar.gz OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 62 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. 1. Ha ha ha No upstream site, no MD5SUM to authenticate against, no place to check we have the latest version. We should probably do something about that. :-) 2. The recommended BuildRoot is: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. rpmlint says: on pirut-1.2.10-1.fc7.noarch.rpm: E: pirut obsolete-not-provided system-config-packages E: pirut obsolete-not-provided redhat-config-packages E: pirut obsolete-not-provided pup E: pirut obsolete-not-provided up2date-gnome E: pirut obsolete-not-provided rhn-applet on pirut-1.2.10-1.fc7.src.rpm: W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes system-config-packages W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes redhat-config-packages W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes pup W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes up2date-gnome W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes rhn-applet These are a bit concerning, but based on our discussion on IRC, I have to agree that they're probably a necessary evil. All of these packages provided, at one time or another, the same functionality that pirut does. They're all long gone from Fedora, probably never to come back. I'd suggest adding Provides for the Obsoleted packages, and perhaps versioning the Obsoletes, but I honestly can't say what the long-term side effects to that might be. Ergo, I imagine we need to just go with what we've got. (Besides, it's already in Core.) 4. I'm a bit concerned about pirut's use of /etc/xdg/autostart/ -- it's owned by gnome-session, but I'm not seeing any sort of dependency on gnome-session. This might be a problem. 5. Open bugs. Holy carp! 62 open bugs! Address #2, #4, and maybe #5 and I think we may have a deal. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:42:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:42:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226298] Merge Review: pirut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092142.l19LgIDZ016120@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pirut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226298 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jima at beer.tclug.org |katzj at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-09 16:42 EST ------- OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: a8f5de528d0491ccbaed671063200521 pirut-1.2.10.tar.gz OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 62 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. 1. Ha ha ha No upstream site, no MD5SUM to authenticate against, no place to check we have the latest version. We should probably do something about that. :-) 2. The recommended BuildRoot is: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. rpmlint says: on pirut-1.2.10-1.fc7.noarch.rpm: E: pirut obsolete-not-provided system-config-packages E: pirut obsolete-not-provided redhat-config-packages E: pirut obsolete-not-provided pup E: pirut obsolete-not-provided up2date-gnome E: pirut obsolete-not-provided rhn-applet on pirut-1.2.10-1.fc7.src.rpm: W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes system-config-packages W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes redhat-config-packages W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes pup W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes up2date-gnome W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes rhn-applet These are a bit concerning, but based on our discussion on IRC, I have to agree that they're probably a necessary evil. All of these packages provided, at one time or another, the same functionality that pirut does. They're all long gone from Fedora, probably never to come back. I'd suggest adding Provides for the Obsoleted packages, and perhaps versioning the Obsoletes, but I honestly can't say what the long-term side effects to that might be. Ergo, I imagine we need to just go with what we've got. (Besides, it's already in Core.) 4. I'm a bit concerned about pirut's use of /etc/xdg/autostart/ -- it's owned by gnome-session, but I'm not seeing any sort of dependency on gnome-session. This might be a problem. 5. Open bugs. Holy carp! 62 open bugs! Address #2, #4, and maybe #5 and I think we may have a deal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:44:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:44:05 -0500 Subject: fedora-review denied: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092144.l19Li5Wg016396@bugzilla.redhat.com> Bug 225238: Merge Review: adaptx Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Andrew Overholt has denied Andrew Overholt 's request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 ------- Additional Comments from Andrew Overholt MUST: X rpmlint on adaptx srpm gives no output W: adaptx invalid-license Exolab Software License I've emailed fedora-maintainers about this. It looks like it'll be okay but I want to confirm first. * package is named appropriately * specfile name matches %{name} X package meets packaging guidelines. . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot it should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) . do we need section free? I think it can safely be removed. . can the Summary be expanded a bit? . the commented-out build-classpath line can probably be removed. was the dependency on js removed? . are the two patches still necessary? . do we need the explicit Epoch? I can't find anything in the guidelines about this but I think it's a bit verbose. After speaking with others, we've come to the conclusion that it doesn't violate the guidelines ... but I still don't like it personally :) X license field matches the actual license. . see above X license is open source-compatible. . again, see above. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English * specfile is legible X source files match upstream . I assume upstream doesn't provide source drops? The svn export is fine in this case (please use an SVN tag), but can you put exact instructions for how to generate the tarball? Preferably something that can be duplicated by just removing leading #'s. I'd also like to see the comment be before the Source entry but that's just personal preference :) Also, I don't think the RHCLEAN is necessary because I think we can re-distribute what binary jars they include upstream. As long as we symlink to our built ones, it should be fine. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on the other arches in Fedora Core presently) * BuildRequires are proper * no locale data so no find_lang necessary * package is not relocatable * package owns all directories and files . I've said in other reviews how I don't like how the javadoc symlinking is being done, but this won't hold up the review. * no %files duplicates * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * -doc subpackage fine . javadoc package present also * %doc files don't affect runtime * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * no desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine ? final provides and requires are sane Do we need a java dependency somewhere? How about a Requires on the things we BR like log4j? $ rpm -qp --provides i386/adaptx-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm adaptx-0.9.13.jar.so adaptx = 0:0.9.13-4jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --provides i386/adaptx-doc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm adaptx-doc = 0:0.9.13-4jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --provides i386/adaptx-javadoc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm adaptx-javadoc = 0:0.9.13-4jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires i386/adaptx-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils jpackage-utils libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) libgcj_bc.so.1 libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -qp --requires i386/adaptx-doc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpm -qp --requires i386/adaptx-javadoc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 SHOULD: * package includes license text * package builds on i386 ... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here X package functions . I don't know how to test this package X package builds in mock my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems here as the package currently builds fine in brew From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:44:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:44:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092144.l19LiHS4016443@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-09 16:44 EST ------- MUST: X rpmlint on adaptx srpm gives no output W: adaptx invalid-license Exolab Software License I've emailed fedora-maintainers about this. It looks like it'll be okay but I want to confirm first. * package is named appropriately * specfile name matches %{name} X package meets packaging guidelines. . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot it should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) . do we need section free? I think it can safely be removed. . can the Summary be expanded a bit? . the commented-out build-classpath line can probably be removed. was the dependency on js removed? . are the two patches still necessary? . do we need the explicit Epoch? I can't find anything in the guidelines about this but I think it's a bit verbose. After speaking with others, we've come to the conclusion that it doesn't violate the guidelines ... but I still don't like it personally :) X license field matches the actual license. . see above X license is open source-compatible. . again, see above. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English * specfile is legible X source files match upstream . I assume upstream doesn't provide source drops? The svn export is fine in this case (please use an SVN tag), but can you put exact instructions for how to generate the tarball? Preferably something that can be duplicated by just removing leading #'s. I'd also like to see the comment be before the Source entry but that's just personal preference :) Also, I don't think the RHCLEAN is necessary because I think we can re-distribute what binary jars they include upstream. As long as we symlink to our built ones, it should be fine. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on the other arches in Fedora Core presently) * BuildRequires are proper * no locale data so no find_lang necessary * package is not relocatable * package owns all directories and files . I've said in other reviews how I don't like how the javadoc symlinking is being done, but this won't hold up the review. * no %files duplicates * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * -doc subpackage fine . javadoc package present also * %doc files don't affect runtime * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * no desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine ? final provides and requires are sane Do we need a java dependency somewhere? How about a Requires on the things we BR like log4j? $ rpm -qp --provides i386/adaptx-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm adaptx-0.9.13.jar.so adaptx = 0:0.9.13-4jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --provides i386/adaptx-doc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm adaptx-doc = 0:0.9.13-4jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --provides i386/adaptx-javadoc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm adaptx-javadoc = 0:0.9.13-4jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires i386/adaptx-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils jpackage-utils libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) libgcj_bc.so.1 libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -qp --requires i386/adaptx-doc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpm -qp --requires i386/adaptx-javadoc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 SHOULD: * package includes license text * package builds on i386 ... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here X package functions . I don't know how to test this package X package builds in mock my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems here as the package currently builds fine in brew -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:46:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:46:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225954] Merge Review: junit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092146.l19Lkjm5016713@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: junit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225954 ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-09 16:46 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147817) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147817&action=view) Spec File The one I previously posted was the wrong patch. Sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:48:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223592] Review Request: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092148.l19LmmYv016806@bugzilla.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: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223592 ------- Additional Comments From dgoodwin at dangerouslyinc.com 2007-02-09 16:48 EST ------- We've released version 0.0.6 to fix a bug, URL's are now: http://dangerouslyinc.com/files/wuja/gnome-applet-wuja.spec http://dangerouslyinc.com/files/wuja/gnome-applet-wuja-0.0.6-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 21:58:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:58:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225954] Merge Review: junit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092158.l19LwxBS017924@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: junit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225954 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-09 16:58 EST ------- Here are a list to my changes: - I changed the License to CPL, because the Packaging Guidelines states that we should use standard abbreviations and rpmlint generated a warning stating that "Common Public License" was not recognized. - I changed the Group to Development/Tools/Java from Development/Testing, as was suggested by Tom. - I switched the source back to junit3.8-2.zip because someone was misinformed and had removed all the binaries. - I removed "-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" from the %prep section because rpmlint generated a warning stating that $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched in the prep stage because it will break short circuiting . - I added "-rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" to the %install section because rpmlint generated an error stating that we should clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT this section. - The %post and %postun sections for demo were removed because they were causing an error while building. - I had to "escape" the macros used in the %changelog because macros are expanded in the %changelog section. - The --excludes were added to aot-compile-rpm to solve a building error. If someone could kindly review this, that would be great. Thanks. Tania -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 22:03:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:03:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225954] Merge Review: junit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092203.l19M3qln018501@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: junit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225954 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fitzsim at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 22:50:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:50:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225954] Merge Review: junit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092250.l19MoYnJ022882@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: junit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225954 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 22:59:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:59:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225954] Merge Review: junit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092259.l19Mx8bo023323@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: junit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225954 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-09 17:59 EST ------- Your patch contains whitespace changes that make it hard to see the real changes. Can you repost a cleaner one? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 23:52:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:52:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 177747] Review Request: glade3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092352.l19NqHb5025416@bugzilla.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: glade3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177747 braden at endoframe.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(bbbush.yuan at gmail.| |com) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 9 23:54:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:54:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226002] Merge Review: libevent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702092354.l19NsQK7025482@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libevent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226002 ------- Additional Comments From steved at redhat.com 2007-02-09 18:54 EST ------- I plan on updated to the latest upstream version... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 00:27:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 19:27:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100027.l1A0RqQR026675@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 bugs.michael at gmx.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: - |Review Request: - | |abstractions> OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-09 19:27 EST ------- The spec file needs *a lot* of work. Let me try to cover many issues in this reply, although I'm afraid I will fail to catch all due to the sheer number of packaging problems. In particular, sub-packages are missing. Run "rpmlint" with option -i on your src.rpm (and also the binary rpms!): $ rpmlint ppl-0.9-1.src.rpm W: ppl summary-ended-with-dot The Parma Polyhedra Library: a C++ library for numerical abstractions. E: ppl no-changelogname-tag W: ppl invalid-license GPL v2 W: ppl hardcoded-packager-tag %{packager} W: ppl hardcoded-prefix-tag /usr W: ppl setup-not-quiet W: ppl mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 1) All findings are worth fixing. "setup-not-quiet" can be ignored, but when adding the -q option to the %setup line of the spec file, the build logs get more readable as the contents of the extracted source archive are not included. "no-changelogname-tag" means that your spec file is missing a standard %changelog section where you sum up important changes applied to the spec file. > %define builddir $RPM_BUILD_DIR/%{name}-%{version} This is unused in the spec file, so don't define it. > %define name ppl > %define version 0.9 > %define release 1 Don't. All macros are defined in the lines below. Here: > Name: %{name} > Version: %{version} > Release: %{release} Fill in the values in those lines, instead of redefining macros via macros. Do this: Name: ppl Version: 0.9 Release: 1 It defines %name, %version, and %release. You can move these lines to the top of the spec file and improve readability. > Vendor: ppl-devel at cs.unipr.it > Packager: %{packager} Don't. Build systems need to be able to override these, so only define them in your local configuration. You don't want anybody, who builds broken binary rpms from your src.rpm, to mark them as coming from you. The included spec %changelog is an entirely different thing. > License: GPL v2 It's just "GPL". > Requires: gmp >= 4.1.3, gcc-c++ >= 4.0.2 Both are wrong. Instead, you want "BuildRequires: gmp-devel", provided that you want to compile with GNU MP. If so, the dependency on the GNU MP library soname is automatically inserted by rpmbuild. > Prefix: /usr This means that you want to mark the packages as relocatable. Whether it really is relocatable remains to be seen after bringing it into shape first. You can safely delete this line unless you insist on making it relocatable. > %setup -n %{name}-%{version} Just %setup -q is fine, since -n %{name}-%{version} is the default. > %build > CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" ./configure --enable-shared \ [snip] Instead of this long command-line, simply run the %configure macro and add any options to it, which it doesn't set automatically. %configure --enable-shared Look at rpm --eval %configure to see what it does. For example, it sets CXXFLAGS for you, too. > %install > if [ -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ] > then > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > fi > mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Not needed and superfluous. Use just: %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > make prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} bindir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir} \ [snip] With standard GNU autotools packages, prefer this line make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install over the rather long command-line in your spec file. When it doesn't work (unlikely with well-maintained autotools code), there is the %makeinstall macro, which can be used instead. Look at rpm --eval %makeinstall to see what it would do. But prefer the DESTDIR install. > %files The main "ppl" package contains a mixture of files. Split off a "ppl-devel" package, which contains the files needed only for software development (include files, the libppl.so symlink, documentation for developers, ppl-config, and so on). The "ppl" package should only contain the main library files, the licence, and any files relevant to the library run-time. Don't include static libraries. If possible, disable them at configure time with --disable-static or just delete them in %install. Also don't include libtool archive files *.la. > %files c Same here. A "ppl-c-devel" package is missing. But doesn't it make sense to put C and C++ library and API into the "ppl" and "ppl-devel" packages? > %files gprolog > %defattr(-,root,root) > %{_bindir}/ppl_gprolog > %{_libdir}/ppl/ppl_gprolog.pl The directory %{_libdir}/ppl/ is not included. You can add %dir %{_libdir}/ppl in the right package which should own this directory entry. >%files sicstus Same here and the other sub-packages. They also contain an orphaned %_libdir/ppl directory. > %post > /sbin/ldconfig > %postun > /sbin/ldconfig > %post c > /sbin/ldconfig > %postun c > /sbin/ldconfig Better: %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig %post c -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun c -p /sbin/ldconfig That executes /sbin/ldconfig directly instead of via /bin/sh, and it creates a dependency on /sbin/ldconfig automatically. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 01:26:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 20:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226180] Merge Review: mysql In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100126.l1A1Qn5x028583@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mysql https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226180 Bug 226180 depends on bug 223713, which changed state. Bug 223713 Summary: mysql: non-failsafe install-info use in scriptlets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223713 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 03:17:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 22:17:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100317.l1A3HY4P031620@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro |caolanm at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-09 22:17 EST ------- Caolan, it looks like you have fixed all recommendations that were suggested and that no one has anything else to comment. I suggest considering this package as approved and using this spec as template for the others. I will be glad to review them all and I hope that other eyes will keep verifying, just like before. I also hope I won't miss anything :) PS: in the future, please increase the release tag and add an entry in the %Changelog when you modify the spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 03:50:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 22:50:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100350.l1A3osu5001286@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |228131 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 03:56:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 22:56:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100356.l1A3ueQQ001678@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-09 22:56 EST ------- update, reworked on gathered files from this bugreport. Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/RPM/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://openrsic.rdsor.ro/RPM/gdal-1.4.0-1.src.rpm - disable geotiff (untill license sorted out) - enable all options aviable from extras - pack perl and python modules - kill r-path from libs - pack all docs posible Can take a look ? Please feel free to update over. I disabled geotiff for now, and not included those uncertain EPSG data. Perl module are shiped too, and frmt documentations are shiped. Anyway, hdf-devel and netcdf-devel seems to not provide shared libs yet, i filled bug report against, i try to help tham get shared stuff. /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 04:05:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 23:05:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100405.l1A45LEs002267@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |228134 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 04:56:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 23:56:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100456.l1A4u8CV006021@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-09 23:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > update, reworked on gathered files from this bugreport. > > Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/RPM/gdal.spec > SRPM URL: http://openrsic.rdsor.ro/RPM/gdal-1.4.0-1.src.rpm gets 404... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 04:57:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 23:57:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100457.l1A4vIxx006124@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn|228131 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 05:00:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:00:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100500.l1A50heH006209@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 00:00 EST ------- updated. Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-1.src.rpm sorry ... was too tired. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 05:02:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:02:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100502.l1A523nF006269@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mclasen at redhat.com |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-10 00:01 EST ------- * Fri Feb 9 2007 Matthias Clasen - 2.12.9-4 - More package review demands: * keep all -devel content in /usr/lib -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 05:04:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:04:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100504.l1A542Ww006325@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag|needinfo?(niles at rickniles.co| |m) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 05:05:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:05:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100505.l1A55eIq006456@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(niles at rickniles.co | |m) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 05:30:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100530.l1A5UEAc006841@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-10 00:30 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147829) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147829&action=view) Mock build log of gdal-1.4.0-1.fc7 (In reply to comment #15) > updated. > Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal.spec > SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-1.src.rpm Mockbuild failed on FC7 i386. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 05:31:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:31:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100531.l1A5VPit006890@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 ------- Additional Comments From ikent at redhat.com 2007-02-10 00:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > > > - rpmlint checks return: > > > > > > W: autofs no-url-tag > > > > > > Is there any? > > > > Not really. > > > > I registered autofs.net and started a wiki (wiki.autofs.net) > > but it needs quite a bit of care and attention. We could use > > it anyway. Have a look and see what you think. > > I would list it. Done. > > > > > > > W: autofs unversioned-explicit-obsoletes autofs-ldap > > > The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all > > > older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update > > > problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it > > > was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if > > > possible. > > > > Not sure but I believe this was added when going from > > autofs version 3 to autofs version 4 and all versions > > of autofs-ldap needed to be obsoleted. Probably good > > to keep this. > > This seems to have happened in the RH6.2/7.0 time frame (~autofs 3.1.5/6), and > I'd would argue that it's long past its usefulness. I would argue the opposite, but no matter. > > It also triggers: > > E: autofs obsolete-not-provided autofs-ldap > The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths > and not to break dependencies. Also, this doesn't interfere with updates, from what I've seen. But I agree there are likely to very few problems as a result of removing it so I've done so. > > Other rpmlint: > > W: autofs conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/autofs > A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. > > - Shouldn't be marked as %config. You could also use the %{_initrd} macro for > the diretory here and elsewhere in the spec. Good catch, I didn't think to use the -v flag. Fixed. > > E: autofs executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/auto.net > E: autofs executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/auto.smb > > - But these are okay - expected to be modified and not required for operation. Where did these come from, I didn't see them in the rpmlint output? Must have an old version. And yes, I think it would be best to leave these as they are. Ian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 05:52:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:52:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100552.l1A5qV6Q007562@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-10 00:52 EST ------- Some remarks: - What is the reason to run autoconf? I don't see any reason to do so. - What is the reason for the cp -af ...? AFAIS, the cause is you running a modern autoconf on a poorly written autoconf-2.13-based configure.in, which seems to break it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 07:37:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:37:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100737.l1A7bNK9010254@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-10 02:37 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147831) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147831&action=view) Mock build log of ogdi-3.1.5-2.fc7 (In reply to comment #5) > updated. > http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec > http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-2.src.rpm Mockbuild log of 3.1.5-2 on FC7 i386 attached. >From a very quick check: * compiler flags + debuginfo rpm - Fedora specific compilation flags are not passed - debuginfo rpm is useless because of missing "-g" option * multilib condition - ogdi-driversdir.patch includes ------------------------------------------- +#define MODULES_PATH "/usr/lib/ogdi/" ------------------------------------------- This is questionable on x86_64 arch. * Documentation Add more documentation. Especially, Changelog README is rather mandatory. * autotool - Please don't use autotool unless it is necessary. * header file location - Please consider to hide header files into %{_includedir}/%{name} - By the way, ecs_util.h includes the line: ----------------------------------------------------- 90 #include "projects.h" ----------------------------------------------------- However, I cannot find projects.h -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 07:56:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:56:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100756.l1A7uXpP010697@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From david at lovesunix.net 2007-02-10 02:56 EST ------- I can confirm that if you disable a11y support on Development this works just peachy except the fact that it really doesn't: - clicking a torrent in Epiphany correctly offers to open with Deluge but the torrent is infact not added to the deluge queue. - It hangs quite frequently, after recovering from such a hang you have to chant the magic verses and restart a few times or it will add one to the port you told it to use and thus both spam libnotify messages and also run very slowly because it doesn't pull over and ask for directions. - It doesn't obey the GNOME default browser setting (or any platform I suspect), when testing the port it starts up Firefox (the same is true for Translate this application, which opens the unfree Launchpad service) - Setting the bandwidth limitations is without notations (upload 40 what?), also 0 in those should be labelled unlimited. I'll go bug upstream ever so much. However the frequent hanging makes me wonder if this is ready to go in, you can hardly turn your back without it hanging and it doesn't recover gracefully at all. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 09:19:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:19:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100919.l1A9Jbbt015865@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 04:19 EST ------- updated. > +#define MODULES_PATH "/usr/lib/ogdi/" add lib64 path search too. Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-3.src.rpm - add dlopen path for lib64 too. - add more docs - fix export of CFLAGS - move include files and add pkgconf module > >* autotool > - Please don't use autotool unless it is necessary. removed. > 90 #include "projects.h" >----------------------------------------------------- > However, I cannot find projects.h This is from proj-devel, so i change to . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 09:48:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:48:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100948.l1A9mEfk017195@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 04:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > Anyway, hdf-devel and netcdf-devel seems to not provide shared libs yet, > i filled bug report against, i try to help tham get shared stuff. I don't think hdf will ever support shared libraries, for netcdf, this is planned by upstream for next release, so if the netcdf-3 api is kept this will be solved. How is it relevant for gdal anyway? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 09:58:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:58:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702100958.l1A9wNiJ017735@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 04:58 EST ------- >How is it relevant for gdal anyway? "hakcs" .. Do you "like" this: -------------/////-----> # err, remove -lnetcdf,-lmfhdf -extras netcdf-devel,hdf-devel not provide (yet). sed -e 's/-lnetcdf//' -e 's/-lmfhdf//' -e 's/-ldf//' < GDALmake.opt > GDALmake.opt.tmp mv -f GDALmake.opt.tmp GDALmake.opt <---------////------------ BTW, is it so hard to add shlib support ? I mean a -devel package something that: 1) can provide shdlib at lasta with a sane soname versioning. 2) can provide at last a pkg-config script to be able check what flags i need to use for that particular -devel lib. But anyway, we can live with "hakcs" ;-) people loves that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 10:03:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:03:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101003.l1AA3Npn017982@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 05:03 EST ------- netcdf-devvel and hdf-devel provide -lnetcdf -lmfhdf and -ldf. Maybe they are not searched for in the right directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 10:25:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:25:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222998] Review Request: iDesk - Desktop icons and background for minimal WMs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101025.l1AAPXVJ019003@bugzilla.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: iDesk - Desktop icons and background for minimal WMs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222998 ------- Additional Comments From gilboad at gmail.com 2007-02-10 05:25 EST ------- Update. Review not dead. Waiting for an answer from the idesk upstream. (Took me a while to locate their support address... - my bad) - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 10:45:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:45:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222523] Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101045.l1AAjDI7020328@bugzilla.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:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222523 ------- Additional Comments From gilboad at gmail.com 2007-02-10 05:45 EST ------- * Sat Feb 10 2007 - 0.9.2-7 - Preserve the source time-stamp. Spec URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/gmrun.spec SRPM URL: http://gilboadavara.thecodergeek.com/gmrun-0.9.2-7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 10:45:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:45:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101045.l1AAjDqj020333@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 ------- Additional Comments From gilboad at gmail.com 2007-02-10 05:45 EST ------- Fixed. * Sat Feb 10 2007 - 1.2.30-12 - Add missing dot in the -gnome sub-package description. - Replace REQ icewm (in both -gnome and -xdgmenu) with icewm-x.x.x. - Fix -xdgmenu file list and %%install section. - Preserve the source time-stamp. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 10:54:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:54:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225745] Merge Review: fedora-logos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101054.l1AAsmI5021155@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-logos https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225745 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|davidz at redhat.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | ------- Additional Comments From roozbeh at farsiweb.info 2007-02-10 05:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Well, you started a review and left a - behind I'm so sorry if that left the impression that I want to review this package. I just mentioned a blocker item which I came into when looking at the package to see if I want to review it or not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:15:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:15:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101115.l1ABFnge021916@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 06:15 EST ------- I may be wrong, but from my reading of config/common.mak and of the makefile it seems that config/Linux.mak is already used, and not config/linux.mak, since TARGET=Linux. So the cp -af are unneeded. As a suggestion, I think it is more readable to avoid the {..,..} in the cp (although it may be less elegant). Also cp -p should in general be better suited than cp -af. make %{?_smp_mflags} fails for me. am I right in thinking that objects in /usr/lib/ogdi/ are dlopened? In that case it would be better if they hadn't a soname. /usr/lib/libecs_tcl.so.1 is in the main package, I guess this is a mistake. README-BIN.TXT is certainly unusefull. The requires for other subpackages should generally be with full version, ie: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Why isn't the sed 's/\"projects.h\"/\/g' a patch instead? It is not a blocker, but I suggest to do patches when possible since sed one liners fail without notice. I also suggest using rm instead of rm -f when possible such that it breaks if the files to remove aren't there anymore. Alternatively you can use %exclude in %files. I would also remove the -f to mv. In the pkgconfig file, there is certainly some .private requires or flags missing, for expat, zlib and proj. And the -devel subpackage depends certainly on zlib-devel, expat-devel and proj-devel. There is a scary amount of compiler warnings most of them seem serious. Maybe you could try to work patches for upstream? There is a Requires on pkgconfig for -devel missing. It seems to be a matter of style, but the template defattr is %defattr(-,root,root,-) If there are some examples, maybe their codes could be in %doc in -devel? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:16:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:16:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101116.l1ABGmGM021977@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 06:16 EST ------- Also for documentation, it should certainly be cp -p %{SOURCE1} . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:27:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:27:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222523] Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101127.l1ABRkeL022304@bugzilla.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:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222523 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 06:27 EST ------- This is already approved... You could have fixed the timestamp before importing to cvs. I can confirm that it is indeed fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:29:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:29:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101129.l1ABTuuP022347@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 06:29 EST ------- There is a link to the srpm missing, but I found it anyway... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:31:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:31:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101131.l1ABVQ65022403@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 06:30 EST ------- GDAL doesn't built now because it doesn't find the ogdi include files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:31:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101131.l1ABVVx1022412@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 06:31 EST ------- updated. Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:32:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:32:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101132.l1ABWSVd022484@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-10 06:32 EST ------- Preserving timestamps on generated files is pretty useless indeed. But in this case, setting INSTALL="install -p" takes care of preserving timestamps on the manpages and config files as well. The only thing the Guidelines say about this is: When adding file copying commands in the spec file, consider using a command that preserves the files' timestamps, eg. cp -p or install -p. I made a small typo in the patch, could you change the version in the last %changelog entry from 2.6.26 to 2.6-26? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:37:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:37:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101137.l1ABbhJi022626@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 06:37 EST ------- ogdi is on its way for proposal/submit. Please grab/build it from: bz#222039 /cristian I still work on GDAL right now, has more issues with stupid -L/ includes and other goodies like that. ETA ~1hour -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:41:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226104] Merge Review: logrotate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101141.l1ABfxt2022749@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logrotate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226104 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-10 06:41 EST ------- Thanks. I don't see any blockers, so this package is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:43:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:43:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101143.l1ABhdM8022800@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rc040203 at freenet.de -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:51:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:51:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101151.l1ABppUd023000@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pertusus at free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 06:51 EST ------- * rpmlint output is ignorable W: icewm-gnome no-documentation W: icewm-xdgmenu no-documentation * license is LGPL, included I thing that you should report upsteram what I say in Comment #21 * source match upstream md5sum icewm-1.2.30.tar.gz icewm-xdg-menu 8a302c5e629bb81d87cc02004a694ece icewm-1.2.30.tar.gz 85eeefb3335e40fcaed392c61892cc72 icewm-xdg-menu * %files section is right APPROVED Just 2 last suggestions, * maybe icewm could own %{_sysconfdir}/icewm but leave it empty. * in the xdgmenu files section, the icewm-xdg-menu line could be %{_bindir}/icewm-xdg-menu Since it is approved you can change that after importing to cvs or keep it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:53:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:53:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101153.l1ABrqWv023095@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 06:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #21) > ogdi is on its way for proposal/submit. > > Please grab/build it from: bz#222039 That's what I used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:54:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:54:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101154.l1ABsifM023143@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 06:54 EST ------- Maybe you missed the Comment #13... Comment #14 was a rather minor addition.... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 11:57:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:57:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101157.l1ABvrRg023247@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 06:57 EST ------- Wait :-) I got now a more final version of GDAL, it works with ogdi. In minutes i will upload. /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 12:00:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:00:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101200.l1AC0C9S023332@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From alcapcom at gmail.com 2007-02-10 07:00 EST ------- Have forgot to say that libxkbui package must be rebuild. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 12:00:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:00:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101200.l1AC08UG023326@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-10 07:00 EST ------- The upstream tarball for netkit-ftp is a gzipped file, not bzipped. netkit-ftp-0.17 isn't available anymore on ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit-devel So you could either update to netkit-ftp-0.18-pre1 or change the Source0 url -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 12:07:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:07:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101207.l1AC7126023511@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 07:06 EST ------- updated. Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-2.src.rpm can review ? anyway it stops at: /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/gdal-1.4.0/install-sh -c .libs/libgdal.lai /var/tmp/gdal-1.4.0-root/usr/lib64/libgdal.la install: .libs/libgdal.lai does not exist make: *** [install-lib] Error 1 becouse i removed rpath is this failure. if have a chance to look into would be fine, i try too to look into, but it will take a while. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 12:08:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:08:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101208.l1AC8l59023580@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 07:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #24) > anyway it stops at: > /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/gdal-1.4.0/install-sh -c .libs/libgdal.lai /var/tmp/gdal-1.4.0-root/usr/lib64/libgdal.la > install: .libs/libgdal.lai does not exist > make: *** [install-lib] Error 1 > > becouse i removed rpath is this failure. Are you sure? Isn't it an issue with parallel build? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 12:11:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:11:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101211.l1ACBklg023671@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-10 07:11 EST ------- > BTW, is it so hard to add shlib support ? In a fork done by the packager? Yes. It can be hard to get it right, because some upstream developers prefer static libs as long as they like to break the API/ABI often. In that case, the package maintainer would need to examine upstream releases very closely and bump the SONAMEs appropriately. If not done correctly, e.g. if a simple libfoo.so or libfoo.so.0 is used and if all deps are rebuild with every new release of the library, there is hardly any added value in using custom shared libs. In a worst case, upstream publishes shared libs later, which conflict with the packager's fork in what SONAMEs are used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 12:18:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225984] Merge Review: lftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101218.l1ACIiU7023873@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225984 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 12:44:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:44:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101244.l1ACiY3D024784@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 07:44 EST ------- > Are you sure? Isn't it an issue with parallel build? no, isn't smp flag. but can look into it. > bugs.michael at gmx.net well, right. No comment. Shlib implies soname and implies versioning wich will may break ABI.So better try upstream people convince to add shlib to their source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 12:46:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:46:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101246.l1ACkQsw024841@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 07:46 EST ------- * There are icons directly in %{_datadir}/icons/ they certainly should be below hicolor. * A .desktop file is missing for xt5250 * -devel should Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} * missing devel dependencies, on openssl-devel and ncurses-devel and pkgconfig * /usr/share/aclocal/ is unowned in devel * some dependencies are missing for the pre/post/... scripts. * BuildRoot is wrong * Prefix: /usr is certainly wrong too. * Isn't the Requires ncurse automatically handled? * Is it really necessary to rerun the autotools? * %{?_smp_mflags} is missing for make * Requires: xterm missing for xt5250 * rpmlint will still say W: tn5250 macro-in-%changelog post W: tn5250 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 70, tab: line 1) W: tn5250-devel summary-not-capitalized development tools for the 5250 protocol. W: tn5250-devel summary-ended-with-dot development tools for the 5250 protocol. Suggestions: * The %files section is certainly over-complicated. * I would personally have removed the -f from rm, such that it fails whenever the target file doesn't exist anymore. * It is better to add a -p to install calls to keep timestamps, and also providing -m xxx for the permissions is relevant. * add a -b to %patches such that it is easy for other contributors to modify and rerun gendiff. * use %_dist in release * remove the static libs, adding --disable-static to %configure should certainly be enough. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 12:58:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 07:58:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101258.l1ACwwXw025124@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 07:58 EST ------- Thanks Patrice ! Well, come again with an update: Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-5.src.rpm >I may be wrong, but from my reading of config/common.mak and of the makefile i rennounce. Was useless in fact. >Also cp -p should in general be better suited than cp -af. updated. >make %{?_smp_mflags} >fails for me. noticed, disabled. >am I right in thinking that objects in /usr/lib/ogdi/ are dlopened? In >that case it would be better if they hadn't a soname. well, its difficult, i have to mess up make-files, i would prefer to leave it like this, and convince upstream people to add -soname suport. I done the soname work over to not warrn rpmlint. >/usr/lib/libecs_tcl.so.1 >is in the main package, I guess this is a mistake. oh, yes it was fixed. >README-BIN.TXT is certainly unusefull. :-)) not included, removed. >The requires for other subpackages should generally be with full version, ie: >Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} oh. sorry for that. >Why isn't the sed 's/\"projects.h\"/\/g' a patch >instead? It is not a blocker, but I suggest to do patches when possible >since sed one liners fail without notice. convert to patch. >I also suggest using rm instead of rm -f when possible such that it no force flags anymore. >In the pkgconfig file, there is certainly some .private requires or >flags missing, for expat, zlib and proj. And the -devel subpackage >depends certainly on zlib-devel, expat-devel and proj-devel. updated. >There is a scary amount of compiler warnings most of them seem >serious. Maybe you could try to work patches for upstream? Well, yes. I would like to clean it up closest to no warrnings, but not right now, it will take time anyway. >There is a Requires on pkgconfig for -devel missing. added. >It seems to be a matter of style, but the template defattr is >%defattr(-,root,root,-) hmm, ok :-) >If there are some examples, maybe their codes could be in %doc in >-devel? added those olso. can re-review ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 13:01:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:01:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208398] Review Request: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101301.l1AD1MQ1025198@bugzilla.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: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208398 ------- Additional Comments From Giuseppe.Castagna at ens.fr 2007-02-10 08:01 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147833) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147833&action=view) Output of the build -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 13:03:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:03:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208398] Review Request: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101303.l1AD3oG5025257@bugzilla.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: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208398 ------- Additional Comments From Giuseppe.Castagna at ens.fr 2007-02-10 08:03 EST ------- (From update of attachment 147833) I cannot compile the source rpm on my fc6 amd64 workstation with a 2.6.20 kernel. See attachement -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 13:38:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:38:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101338.l1ADcL6w026092@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-10 08:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > MUST: > X rpmlint on adaptx srpm gives no output > > W: adaptx invalid-license Exolab Software License > > I've emailed fedora-maintainers about this. It looks like it'll be okay but I > want to confirm first. According to this: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00367.html we should just mark it as BSD. So we have remaining: > X package meets packaging guidelines. > > . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot > > it should be: > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > . do we need section free? I think it can safely be removed. > . can the Summary be expanded a bit? > . the commented-out build-classpath line can probably be removed. was the > dependency on js removed? > . are the two patches still necessary? > X source files match upstream > . I assume upstream doesn't provide source drops? The svn export is fine in > this case (please use an SVN tag), but can you put exact instructions for how to > generate the tarball? Preferably something that can be duplicated by just > removing leading #'s. I'd also like to see the comment be before the Source > entry but that's just personal preference :) Also, I don't think the RHCLEAN is > necessary because I think we can re-distribute what binary jars they include > upstream. As long as we symlink to our built ones, it should be fine. > Do we need a java dependency somewhere? How about a Requires on the things we > BR like log4j? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 13:40:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:40:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101340.l1ADeahl026203@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-10 08:40 EST ------- Rebuild to updated ntfs-config to 0.5.4-1 New spec and srpm files below Spec: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/ntfs-config.spec SRPM: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/ntfs-config-0.5.4-1.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 13:42:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:42:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101342.l1ADg3k6026265@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 08:42 EST ------- The .pc changes are wrong. Here is something that seems to be right to me: Libs.private: -lproj -lexpat -lz libecs_tcl.so.1 is still in the main package. Maybe you could avoid that by having in %files, instead of %{_libdir}/lib[^l]*.so.*: %{_libdir}/libogdi*.so.* The makefiles should certainly be removed from examples shipped in %doc. When doing that, make sure that --short-circuit works. As a suggestion, the removal of .cvsignore could also be in %setup, those files shouldn't have been shipped in the first place. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 13:47:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:47:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101347.l1ADlDA7026473@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-10 08:47 EST ------- s/updated/update -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 13:56:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:56:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101356.l1ADuXGK027214@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 08:56 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147834) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147834&action=view) use INST_LIB instead of hardcoding MODULES_PATH This is a proposed replacement for ogdi-driversdir.patch. It uses INST_LIB to set MODULES_PATH instead of hardcoding. It applies with -p1. This also means that INST_LIB should be set to the right value when compiling, I think that it means that make, in the .spec should be called like make INST_LIB=%{_libdir}/ogdi This would be more acceptable for upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 14:16:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:16:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222618] Review Request: llk_linux - A very popular game from inernet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101416.l1AEGRCp028742@bugzilla.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: llk_linux - A very popular game from inernet Alias: llk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222618 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(kingyipan at linpus.c | |om) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-10 09:16 EST ------- Umm?? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 14:31:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:31:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101431.l1AEVrRv029261@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 09:31 EST ------- I think that the soname patch should be dropped for 2 reasons * for dlopened libs it add a soname, it is wrong * if upstream adds a shlib it may use another soname and then you are in big trouble. Maybe what could be done, besides working with upstream such that they include sanely a shared library ogdi public libraries, would be to keep the dlopened objects as-is in %_libdir/ogdi, remove libogdi.so (and libogdi31.so?) and keep only static libraries in -devel in %_libdir, and link statically against ogdi. It also seems to me that te tcl interface object file is dlopened and should be loaded. So it doesn't needs to be in %_libdir, nor have a soname. It may be left in %_libdir/ogdi, or moved to the appropriate tcl/tk directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 14:40:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:40:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101440.l1AEeQH6029579@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 bagnara at cs.unipr.it changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bagnara at cs.unipr.it ------- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs.unipr.it 2007-02-10 09:40 EST ------- Thank you very much for the detailed report. We have now fixed all the problems indicated by `rpmlint -i' and most of the issues you pointed out. We would need further advice for the following items though. > > Requires: gmp >= 4.1.3, gcc-c++ >= 4.0.2 > > Both are wrong. Instead, you want "BuildRequires: gmp-devel", > provided that you want to compile with GNU MP. If so, the dependency > on the GNU MP library soname is automatically inserted by rpmbuild. Right. I have added "BuildRequires: gmp-devel". But shouldn't we also have "Requires: gmp-devel"? I mean, the PPL header files include the GMP header files, so to use the library (as well as to build it) the GMP header files must be present. Moreover, building the library also requires gcc, gcc-c++ and probably many other tools: should these all be listed? Also, using the library certainly requires libstdc++ and building requires libstdc++-devel. What is the rationale here? > > Prefix: /usr > > This means that you want to mark the packages as relocatable. > Whether it really is relocatable remains to be seen after bringing > it into shape first. You can safely delete this line unless you > insist on making it relocatable. I have temporarily commented it out. As you say, we can see later whether the packages are relocatable. > Don't include static libraries. If possible, disable them at configure > time with --disable-static or just delete them in %install. Is this really necessary? Some applications require static libraries. What if we put the static libraries in the *-devel packages? This is what is done in, e.g., the gmp-devel package. > Also don't include libtool archive files *.la. OK. > > %files c > > Same here. A "ppl-c-devel" package is missing. But doesn't it make > sense to put C and C++ library and API into the "ppl" and > "ppl-devel" packages? The PPL consists of one core library and several interfaces (C++, C plus 6 Prolog dialects; in forthcoming version 0.10 there are also an OCaml and a Java interface). The interfaces are all independent from one another and most user will only need one or perhaps two of them. So it seemed a good idea to have them separate, also because they have quite stringent and different requirements. What is the policy? Should all the packages be split in a pair made up of "package" and "package-devel"? I ask this because, we may end up producing lots of packages: ppl base library code (C++ shared library), license ppl-devel ppl-config, documentation ppl-cxx-devel C++ interface header file and static library ppl-c C interface shared library ppl-c-devel C interface header file and static library ppl-java ... ppl-java-devel ppl-ocaml ppl-ocaml-devel ppl-some-prolog ppl-some-prolog-devel [the last two items multiplied by 6] To these we should probably add ppl-lpsol a program that also depends on glpk-devel I don't know if this is the way to go. A few observations: 1) ppl-cxx is not present in the list above because I don't know what it could contain that is not already in the base ppl package. 2) It is possible to reduce the number of packages by merging the C and the C++ interfaces: the only drawback is that those who only use one of the two interfaces would waste some disk space. 3) To reduce the number of packages further, the distinction between base and devel packages could be dropped for the other interfaces: it is quite likely that those who need ppl-some-prolog will need also ppl-some-prolog-devel. Of course, if the number of packages is not something we should worry about we could go for the cleanest solution and split the library as indicated above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 14:46:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:46:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101446.l1AEkMfb029779@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 ------- Additional Comments From miker5slow at grandecom.net 2007-02-10 09:46 EST ------- I couldnt find anything about yelp in the packaging guidelines so I didnt add anything for it. http://fluxbox-wiki.org/packages/fedora/etherape-0.9.7-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 15:04:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:04:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101504.l1AF496I030764@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 15:19:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101519.l1AFJVZ2031428@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-10 10:19 EST ------- > I have added "BuildRequires: gmp-devel". But shouldn't we also > have "Requires: gmp-devel"? I mean, the PPL header files include > the GMP header files, so to use the library (as well as to build > it) the GMP header files must be present. Right. Then a "Requires: gmp-devel" must be added to "ppl-devel" as soon as it exists. > Moreover, building the library also requires gcc, gcc-c++ > and probably many other tools: should these all be listed? No. C/C++ compilers and a set of other development tools belong into the default build environment and are expected to be present: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions > Also, using the library certainly requires libstdc++ and building > requires libstdc++-devel. What is the rationale here? As above, these belong also into the set of packages, which is a minimal environment for software development. E.g. gcc-c++ "Requires: libstdc++ libstdc++-devel" already, and it's similar for the C compiler and the C Standard Library. [no static libs] > Is this really necessary? This is what the Packaging Committee works on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage > The PPL consists of one core library and several interfaces (C++, C > plus 6 Prolog dialects; in forthcoming version 0.10 there are also > an OCaml and a Java interface). Still, C++ and C are close relatives, and when the main "ppl" package contains the C++ ppl, it doesn't hurt to include the C ppl, too. For the C++/C stuff you then have only two packages: ppl and ppl-devel For the other languages, sub-packages are better, as they likely create additional dependencies on language-specific packages. And you don't want that the C++ programmer needs to install packages for many other languages. >3) To reduce the number of packages further, the distinction between > base and devel packages could be dropped for the other interfaces: > it is quite likely that those who need ppl-some-prolog will need > also ppl-some-prolog-devel. This would be in violation of the packaging guidelines. It would be a problem, when run-time components would depend on -devel components which is not allowed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 15:23:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:23:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101523.l1AFN1nY031568@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 10:22 EST ------- It is fortunate that there is nothing about yelp in the guidelines. It is a viewer for the documentation handled by scrollkeeper. Maybe you could flag as %doc everything that is below %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc/ And also maybe %{_datadir}/omf/etherape/etherape-C.omf The day it becomes possible to view the doc from the etherape window you would have to remove the %doc qualifier, but today it doesn't seems to be used in runtime (except if I missed something). I also suggest removing 'for UNIX' from the description. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 15:30:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:30:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101530.l1AFU2T3031931@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 10:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > [no static libs] > > > Is this really necessary? > > This is what the Packaging Committee works on: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/StaticLinkage I didn't looked at the package itself, but from the description it seems that it would be ok to provide static libraries, it seems the usual case of numerical software where static libraries may be useful and are not harmful. They should be put in a -static subpackage, however. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 15:55:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:55:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101555.l1AFt7Zn000645@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-10 10:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > - takes ownership of /usr/share/omf and /usr/share/pixmaps /usr/share/pixmaps is already owned by filesystem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 16:05:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:05:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101605.l1AG5qvk001151@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-10 11:05 EST ------- Well, for 0.5.4-1: * BuildRequires/Requires: - This is gtk2 application and gtk+ is not necessary. - Also, libglade is not needed. - pkgconfig for BuildRequires is redundant as gtk2-devel requires (and should require) pkgconfig. - gtk2-devel for BuildRequires is redundant. libglade2-devel requires gtk2-devel. * Source vs using echo - Personally, I don't like to use "echo ???? >> file" because: - it may update timestamp of the file unnecessarily. - this makes the spec file larger. Rather I like to make a file and include it as sources. * Desktop file - Category ------------------------------------------------------------- --add-category X-Fedora \ ------------------------------------------------------------- This category is deprecated and should be removed. - Icon ------------------------------------------------------------- Icon=gnome-dev-harddisk ------------------------------------------------------------- aracarte shows that this is taken from /usr/share/icons/Bluecurve/48x48/devices/gnome-dev-harddisk.png, so adding "Requires: redhat-artwork" is preferable, IMO (on FC-devel. on FC-6, this may differs). * soft linking - soft linking should be relative. ------------------------------------------------------------- ln -s /%{_bindir}/consolehelper $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/%{name} ------------------------------------------------------------- should be: ------------------------------------------------------------- ln -s consolehelper $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/%{name} ------------------------------------------------------------- * Timestamps - Keep timestamps on text files, for example, .fdi files in /usr/share/ntfs-config/. Perhaps ------------------------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -c -p" ------------------------------------------------------------- will work (check this). * Documentation - Please add the following documents. ------------------------------------------------------------- README TODO ------------------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 16:09:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:09:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101609.l1AG9bXp001283@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-10 11:09 EST ------- s|aracarte|alacarte| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 16:14:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:14:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101614.l1AGE7Zj001414@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-10 11:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16) > I can confirm that if you disable a11y support on Development this works just > peachy except the fact that it really doesn't: > Can you check if the phenomena you are seeing on FC-devel (perhaps x86_64) also occur on FC-6/5? I suspect that most of the issues you are seeing is due to FC-devel gail or something. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 16:26:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:26:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101626.l1AGQObC001779@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-10 11:26 EST ------- Well, ogdi is in the state of discussion, so would you disable it? I will check when you upload the next spec/srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 16:54:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:54:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101654.l1AGsw2I002504@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 11:54 EST ------- updated. Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-3.src.rpm I disabled ogdi. Try to work on it olso, i think Patrice had a good suggestion for ogdi and i deal right now to do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 17:27:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:27:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227078] Review Request: jython-2.2-0.a0.3jpp - Java source interpreter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101727.l1AHRU9Q003347@bugzilla.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: jython-2.2-0.a0.3jpp - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227078 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-10 12:27 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 193898 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 17:28:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:28:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101728.l1AHS2nG003374@bugzilla.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: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rafaels at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-10 12:27 EST ------- *** Bug 227078 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 17:30:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:30:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227060] Review Request: icu4j-3.4.5-1jpp - International Components for Unicode for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101730.l1AHU5pl003480@bugzilla.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: icu4j-3.4.5-1jpp - International Components for Unicode for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227060 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-10 12:29 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 199592 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 17:30:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101730.l1AHUbIl003519@bugzilla.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: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rafaels at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-10 12:30 EST ------- *** Bug 227060 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 Feb 10 18:44:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101844.l1AIi0Av005776@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-10 13:43 EST ------- The inlined pkgconfig file is broken. In its "Requires" line it creates a dependency on non-existant pkgconfig template files. You cannot put RPM package names there. Be aware that for an installed system, a broken pkgconfig dependency-chain breaks many pkg-config queries globally. The damage then is not local to this ogdi package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 19:05:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:05:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 204494] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed - Embedded mozilla with perl! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101905.l1AJ5I9R006154@bugzilla.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-Gtk2-MozEmbed - Embedded mozilla with perl! https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204494 stefmanos at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |stefmanos at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From stefmanos at gmail.com 2007-02-10 14:05 EST ------- Needs BR gtk2-devel For FC6 change BR form mozilla-devel to firefox-devel To build in mock you must disable the testing as it fails The final rpm after installed in fc6 segfaults. (not tested in fc5 or rawhide) According to upstream http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=24035 the problem is with libgtkmozembed.so from firefox -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 19:55:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:55:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225794] Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702101955.l1AJtfen007775@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 ------- Additional Comments From apodtele at ucsd.edu 2007-02-10 14:55 EST ------- Tim just clarified [see bug 203369] that this package only contains other, miscellaneous, or additional (whatever...) fonts for ghostscript. The more important fonts for ghostscript come from urw-fonts and are shared with X.org. This is cool! Description does mention this but can be more upfront about this in the first sentence. Maybe, the packages should be more appropriately renamed to ghostscript-fonts-other? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 21:08:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:08:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102108.l1AL8Qcm009897@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs.unipr.it 2007-02-10 16:08 EST ------- Thanks. We are restructuting everything along the lines you suggested. Actually, I have spent the good part of this afternoon trying to solve the rpath problem. I thought it was enough to do something like %build %configure --enable-shared --disable-rpath make But it is not: I still see link commands like /bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link g++ -W -Wall -g -O2 \ -o libppl.la -rpath /usr/lib64 -version-info 6:0:0 ... I tried with google and I only got more confused: it is a bug of libtool; it is no longer a bug of libtool; it is because something is wrong with /etc/ld.so.conf; an autoreconf -f -i would solve it (but it did not in my case); and so on and so forth. Can you please point me in the right direction? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 21:37:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:37:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102137.l1ALbb7T010403@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-10 16:37 EST ------- And the RPATH is also in the binaries? [...] > %build > CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" ./configure --enable-shared \ With ppl-0.9-1.src.rpm the code does not compile with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. Something in the configure script overrides the flags with -W -Wall -g -O2 ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 21:46:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:46:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225066] Review Request: gedit-plugins - Collections of plugins for gedit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102146.l1ALkCQ2010620@bugzilla.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: gedit-plugins - Collections of plugins for gedit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225066 bugs.michael at gmx.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bugs.michael at gmx.net OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778, 177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 21:46:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:46:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225882] Merge Review: hdparm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102146.l1ALkO6t010658@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hdparm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225882 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro |karsten at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-10 16:46 EST ------- MUST: - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (BSD) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of foreign files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - just a small binary, no static, .la, .pc etc - no scriptlets SHOULD - builds in mock - runs as advertised The only caveat I see is that, despite being passed RPM_BUILD_OPT in %build, it also takes looooots of compile parameters from the Makefile. All seem sane however, and are not very important since it's not an application from which to squeeze each ounce of performance. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 21:53:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:53:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102153.l1ALr4l3010819@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-10 16:53 EST ------- (in reply to comment #7) That's why I flagged as an error the presence of /usr/share/pixmaps in %files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 22:09:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:09:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102209.l1AM9I1M011129@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs.unipr.it 2007-02-10 17:09 EST ------- > And the RPATH is also in the binaries? Ehm, no. How embarassing: I kept looking at the compilation log (seeing the the -rpath option was passed to libtool) without checking again with rpmlint -i. Thanks! >> %build >> CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" ./configure --enable-shared \ > > With ppl-0.9-1.src.rpm the code does not compile with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. > Something in the configure script overrides the flags with > -W -Wall -g -O2 ... Sorry, I don't understand. Where did you take "CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" ./configure ..."? Are you saying that in the spec file I should replace %build %configure --enable-shared --disable-rpath make with %build CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" ./configure --enable-shared --disable-rpath make ? In configure.ac there is the following: # If we are using GCC we want to compile with warnings enabled. if test x"$GCC" = xyes then CFLAGS="-W -Wall $CFLAGS" fi if test x"$GXX" = xyes then CXXFLAGS="-W -Wall $CXXFLAGS" fi Plus the following code implementing the --enable-optimization configure option. arch=no enableval=standard AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether to enable optimizations]) AC_ARG_ENABLE(optimization, AC_HELP_STRING([--enable-optimization], [enable compiler optimizations])) case "${enableval}" in sspeed) AC_MSG_RESULT(sspeed) OPT_FLAGS="$OPT_FLAGS -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer" arch=yes ;; speed) AC_MSG_RESULT(speed) OPT_FLAGS="$OPT_FLAGS -O3" arch=yes ;; size) AC_MSG_RESULT(size) OPT_FLAGS="$OPT_FLAGS -Os" arch=yes ;; standard | yes) AC_MSG_RESULT(standard) OPT_FLAGS="$OPT_FLAGS -O2" ;; mild) AC_MSG_RESULT(mild) OPT_FLAGS="$OPT_FLAGS -O1" ;; zero) AC_MSG_RESULT(zero) OPT_FLAGS="$OPT_FLAGS -O0" ;; no) AC_MSG_RESULT(no) ;; *) AC_MSG_ERROR([bad value ${enableval} for --enable-optimization, needs sspeed, speed, size, standard, mild, zero, yes or no]) ;; esac >From what you write I gather this is not good. What can we do to improve the situation? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 22:29:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102229.l1AMTW4L011699@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-10 17:29 EST ------- Thanks for the comments. I have updated the spec file and the srpm on the given URL above. I fixed the buildroot name, changed license to BSD, removed the commented build-classpath line, expanded the summary a bit, updated source location to the svn tag, and made the BR and Requires same (except for ant, which is strictly a BR). 1. I did not change the RHCLEAN. This is because I am unsure if it is really okay to put jars in tarballs. That used to be the case in Fedora packages before, and gbenson had updated all tarballs to remove the jars. Has the policy changed again? 2. I did not remove the epoch. I don't recall why that exists there in the first place, but I remember fnasser mentioning that it was necessary for packages to work correctly. I will send him a mail asking about this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 22:33:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:33:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102233.l1AMXmVB011830@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-10 17:33 EST ------- That refers to your original rpm: > http://www.cs.unipr.it/~cimino/ppl-0.9-1.src.rpm The way CXXFLAGS are passed in from the outside, it doesn't succeed: $ grep CXX ppl.spec CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" ./configure --enable-shared \ > g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -I../src -W -Wall -g -O2 > -MT Bounding_Box .lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/Bounding_Box.Tpo > -c Bounding_Box.cc -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/ Bounding_Box.o $ rpm --eval %optflags -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables And concluding from that, the %configure macro (which sets CXXFLAGS, CFLAGS and FFLAGS) will not succeed either, because something overrides CXXFLAGS. I haven't yet looked into it. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 22:36:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225710] Merge Review: dtach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102236.l1AMa8V5011905@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dtach https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225710 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-10 17:35 EST ------- let me know when the build goes out so I can follow up. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 22:37:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:37:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102237.l1AMbdmq011975@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-10 17:37 EST ------- Almost everything seems fine now. except with the desktop file: according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755 "If upstream uses , leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as ." Therefore you should use desktop-file-install --vendor="fedora". Good - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license is GPL, text in %doc, matches source, includes COPYING from the sources - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, is last available version, sha1sum 72e5e570530a89ea962a17e55723318010e9a8e5 etherape-0.9.7.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - MINOR (not a blocker): unnecessary BR libglade2-devel (brought in by libgnomeui-devel) - handles locales properly - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - docs are small - nothing in %doc affects runtime - scriptlets respect packaging recommendations - no static content, pkgconfig(.pc) files, or libtool archives All problems mentioned in comments #3 and #4 are fixed. The package is APPROVED but please fix the desktop-file install command before importing. You could also remove libglade2-devel from BR, unless you have an important reason to keep it mentioned. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 22:47:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:47:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228159] New: Review Request: new-stuff-manager - program that runs in the background and downloads/installs plugins 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=228159 Summary: Review Request: new-stuff-manager - program that runs in the background and downloads/installs plugins Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: marduk at k-d-w.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.k-d-w.org/clipboard/review/new-stuff-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://www.k-d-w.org/clipboard/review/new-stuff-manager-0.2.2-1.src.rpm Description: NewStuffManager is a program that runs in the background and downloads/installs plugins. It can be used by any application through its D-Bus interface. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 22:50:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:50:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225247] Merge Review: anacron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102250.l1AMoC8j012232@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-10 17:50 EST ------- okay the new build looks good to me. All the blockers are fixed and additional warnings from rpmlint were fixed as well. New srpm builds under mock locally under x86. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 22:58:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:58:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102258.l1AMwJpI012550@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-10 17:58 EST ------- Can you ping this bug when this build reaches the development tree? It hasn't landed yet afaict, and I'd like to finish the review as soon as I can. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 23:14:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102314.l1ANEso9013083@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-10 18:14 EST ------- Regardless wether it passes committee or not, there are multiple scenarios where there simply is not suitable source URL that can be put there. I have no problem putting the full source url for gnome packages in the spec files, since I do so many package updates from gnome ftp that I can type the full source url for a gnome tarball without looking. But what about packages which do not publish upstream releases in tarball form at all, or packages where the fedora source rpm is the preferred form of distribution because they are Red Hat inhouse projects ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 10 23:22:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:22:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227230] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702102322.l1ANMjgR013333@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227230 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood at gmail.com 2007-02-10 18:22 EST ------- Updated: Spec URL: http://jgu.nonlogic.org/emacs-bbdb.spec SRPM URL: http://jgu.nonlogic.org/emacs-bbdb-2.35-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 00:05:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:05:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110005.l1B05eKT014363@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-10 19:05 EST ------- As explained in #13, there are de facto rules for pulling from revision control which need to be written down and voted on. And Jeremy Katz is working on the inhouse Red Hat "source rpm is canonical" policy. We need to write those two policies in such a way that Mozilla and similar are covered. The way things have worked until now, the sources have been assumed to be available somehow (otherwise it's not open source.) If it's a tarball, provide a URL. If it's a snapshot from revision control, either a comment on how to pull that revision or a script to pull it and construct the tarball is necessary. I'm not sure what Jeremy's plans are WRT srpm's being the canonical source but if the only public source is the rpm itself then the rules will have to reflect that. The overarching reason is that sources need to be checked against upstream. One of RPM's design goals is to cleanly separate the upstream code (in the form of a tarball) from the vendor changes (in the form of patches). Including the information necessary to check this in the spec file helps reviewers to check that the tarball is actually based on upstream. In cases where we're upstream we should theoretically be able to apply other, better tests to show this: like tapping the developer on the shoulder and asking if he really released 0.2 yesterday with the following md5sum. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 00:13:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:13:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110013.l1B0DUbD014512@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |nsantos at redhat.com CC| |overholt at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-10 19:13 EST ------- MUST: X rpmlint on jtidy srpm gives no output W: jtidy non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/HTML . ignore this one E: jtidy unknown-key GPG#c431416d . I don't where this is coming from. Perhaps the SRPM just needs to be rebuilt on Fedora? E: jtidy tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: jtidy non-utf8-spec-file jtidy.spec . I think this *might* be the accent in Ville's last name * package is named appropriately X specfile name matches %{name} . the specfile should just be jtidy.spec X package meets packaging guidelines. . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot it should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) . remove "section free" . remove BuildArch . why have the scripts sub-package at all? I think we should just put jtidy.script into the main jtidy package. This should be done at JPackage, though, I guess, so don't worry about it here. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English * specfile is legible . I think the script should be renamed to just %{name}.script ... but this is . why use %__rm and not just rm? . same for %__chmod, %ant, %__sed, and %__ln_s -> just a nit-pick and not something that will hold up the review * source files match upstream (md5sum checked) X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 . I get a whole bunch of these errors using the latest gcj 4.1 branch (with the generics backport): [javac] 26. ERROR in /home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/jtidy-04aug2000r7-dev/src/org/w3c/tidy/DOMElementImpl.java (at line 31) [javac] public class DOMElementImpl extends DOMNodeImpl [javac] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [javac] The type DOMElementImpl must implement the inherited abstract method Element.setIdAttribute(String, boolean) X BuildRequires are proper . one of the duplicate "Requires: xml-commons-apis" should become a BuildRequires * no locale data so no find_lang necessary * package is not relocatable * package owns all directories and files X no %files duplicates . I don't think the %ghost is necessary for the last entry in %files javadoc * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * no large docs so no -doc subpackage . javadoc package present * %doc files don't affect runtime * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * no desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine * final provides and requires are sane Note: we should try to gcj-ify this package while we're at it. SHOULD: * package includes license text X package builds on i386 . see above X package functions . I don't know how to test this package X package builds in mock my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I'll try to test on Monday -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 00:20:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:20:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 177414] Review Request: geda - project manager for gEDA project In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110020.l1B0KrJn014654@bugzilla.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: geda - project manager for gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177414 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cgoorah at yahoo.com.au ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-10 19:20 EST ------- *** Bug 207770 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 00:26:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 19:26:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 177414] Review Request: geda - project manager for gEDA project In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110026.l1B0QilR014795@bugzilla.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: geda - project manager for gEDA project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177414 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-10 19:26 EST ------- Oops! Fixing: *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 204259 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 03:36:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:36:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110336.l1B3aUGB017780@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-10 22:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18) > The .pc changes are wrong. Here is something that seems to > be right to me: > > Libs.private: -lproj -lexpat -lz added. sorry was confused when told me first. > > > libecs_tcl.so.1 is still in the main package. Maybe you could avoid that > by having in %files, instead of %{_libdir}/lib[^l]*.so.*: > > %{_libdir}/libogdi*.so.* excluded. > The makefiles should certainly be removed from examples shipped > in %doc. When doing that, make sure that --short-circuit works. its done, short-circuiting install works fine, olso build works. > > As a suggestion, the removal of .cvsignore could also be in %setup, > those files shouldn't have been shipped in the first place. moved in setup, olso added some tab checking lookups, and UTF8 converters. > > i come up later , thinking how to solve soname. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 04:01:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:01:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110401.l1B41bOo018220@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From ianburrell at gmail.com 2007-02-10 23:01 EST ------- I chose to use "ack" as the package name because it is primarily an application. Also, the other choices were "perl-ack" looks like a pragma, or "perl-App-Ack" which is non-standard and hard to find. Fixed Source URL. Spec URL: http://znark.com/fedora/ack.spec SRPM URL: http://znark.com/fedora/ack-1.56-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 04:35:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:35:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227198] Review Request: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110435.l1B4ZQ7S019866@bugzilla.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: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227198 guthrie at counterexample.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |guthrie at counterexample.org ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-10 23:35 EST ------- This is my first review, so this is kind of unofficial. So here goes: - rpmlint -i is silent on the src.rpm. - Name of spec file matches name of package which matches base part of source code name - License in License tag seems to match the license in the source code, but would it be possible to be more specific that zlib/libpng? (zlib has a BSD license, libpng has an "OSI certified license" that looks kind of BSD-ish.) - source file matches that given in the URL. - spec file successfuly builds jpgalleg, jpgalleg-devel, and jpgalleg-debuginfo RPMS on i386. (I don't have access to any other architectures.) - BuildRequires seems good. - calls ldconfig in %post and %postun as it should. - premissions look good. - Requires: for the -devel subpackage look good. I haven't verified that it builds in mock yet, but everything else except for the license issue above looks quite good. Even the license thing is minor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 04:44:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:44:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228185] 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=228185 Summary: Review Request:
- Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: guthrie at counterexample.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/fc6/gsm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/fc6/gsm-1.0.12-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: Contains runtime shared libraries for libgsm, an implementation of the European GSM 06.10 provisional standard for full-rate speech transcoding, prI-ETS 300 036, which uses RPE/LTP (residual pulse excitation/long term prediction) coding at 13 kbit/s. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 04:47:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:47:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228185] Review Request:
- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110447.l1B4l8uO020590@bugzilla.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:
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228185 guthrie at counterexample.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request:
- - |summary here> Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |INSUFFICIENT_DATA ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-10 23:47 EST ------- Please ignore this bug. It looks like I didn't fill out the form correctly. (oops.) I'm closing this bug, and then opening another one correctly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 04:49:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:49:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228186] New: Review Request: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor 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=228186 Summary: Review Request: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: guthrie at counterexample.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/fc6/gsm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/fc6/gsm-1.0.12-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: Contains runtime shared libraries for libgsm, an implementation of the European GSM 06.10 provisional standard for full-rate speech transcoding, prI-ETS 300 036, which uses RPE/LTP (residual pulse excitation/long term prediction) coding at 13 kbit/s. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 04:55:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:55:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228185] Review Request:
- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110455.l1B4tHso021085@bugzilla.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:
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228185 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|INSUFFICIENT_DATA |DUPLICATE OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-10 23:55 EST ------- Ah.. you could change summary afterwards.. but it is okay. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 228186 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 04:55:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:55:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228186] Review Request: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110455.l1B4tSF1021105@bugzilla.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: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228186 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-10 23:55 EST ------- *** Bug 228185 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 06:30:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 01:30:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] New: Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB 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=228188 Summary: Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jspaleta at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/usbsink/usbsink.spec SRPM URL: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/usbsink/usbsink-0.3.0-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB. It is designed for users of removable drives, such as flash drives or external hard disks. In USBSink you create tasks which define program activities. Within a task, you subscribe and files and directories to transfer. Each task is associated to a particular USB drive. The program then synchronizes the files whenever possible. For example, it could be when a target flash drive is mounted or plugged in, and it containes some new or modified files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 07:50:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 02:50:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224245] Merge Review: squirrelmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110750.l1B7o8VV024287@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: squirrelmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224245 ------- Additional Comments From tokul at users.sourceforge.net 2007-02-11 02:50 EST ------- (In reply to comment #0) > Requesting review in preparation for the Fedora merge. This package is in a horrible, horrible mess, with language specific patches (more yet coming...) and a mass encoding change. Fedora needs some serious help in merging these things upstream, and convincing upstream to handle the l10n encodings in a non-braindead way so we don't have to ship with these horrible ugly hacks. > When was the last time you have submitted your SquirrelMail patches to upstream? I think Fedora SquirrelMail rpm contains several patches that are never submitted to upstream. And you don't listen when upstream developer warns you about uninitialized variables in your patches. You assume that #195639 is specific to Japanese, but same thing happens in Chinese and Korean. #195639 issue happens only when translation uses euc or gb or big5 character sets. rawurlencode is needed, if CJK translation is used in utf-8. You keep CJK translations in their original encodings, because "UTF-8 is unrealistic". I think you haven't checked SquirrelMail extra decoding library functions. euc-kr, gb2312 and big5 translations are unrealistic in RedHat, because SquirrelMail does not support these charsets in encoding functions and RedHat does not enable PHP extensions (#106755) that allow to implement CJK encoding functions. If encoding functions are not implemented, you must write more XTRA_CODE hacks for Chinese and Korean, because without those hacks replies to gb2312-hz, iso-2022 and utf8 emails are broken in gb2312/big5 Chinese and euc-kr Korean. UTF-8 is unrealistic only when you want to accept Chinese emails with mime formating violations. You ask to push patch to upstream in #209105, when in fact issue is caused by smart B encoding in some other product. SquirrelMail does not make that type of encoding decisions in B encoding. > Squirrelmail is a terrible IMAP webmail client that hasn't improved... And these words are coming from a person that does not cooperate with upstream developers and hasn't moved a finger to push Fedora fixes to upstream. http://search.gmane.org/search.php?query=warren+togami&author=&group=gmane.mail.squirrelmail.user&sort=date&submit=submit http://search.gmane.org/search.php?query=warren+togami&author=&group=gmane.mail.squirrelmail.internationalization&sort=date&submit=submit http://search.gmane.org/search.php?query=warren+togami&author=&group=gmane.mail.squirrelmail.devel&sort=date&submit=submit http://search.gmane.org/search.php?query=warren+togami&author=&group=gmane.mail.squirrelmail.plugins&sort=date&submit=submit One email about broken patches and one email by other person related to lack of mbstring support in older redhat packages. Zero emails about #196017, #195639, #195452, #194457, #194598. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 07:52:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 02:52:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110752.l1B7qw1u024358@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-11 02:52 EST ------- The package's configure script suffers from a small but ugly bug: ... checking for xgettext... /usr/bin/xgettext ./configure: line 6833: sr: command not found checking for dirent.h that defines DIR... yes ... The cause seems to be this line from configure.ac (seemingly broken quoting): ALL_LINGUAS= "`cat "$srcdir/po/LINGUAS"`" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 08:01:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:01:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110801.l1B81GRS024435@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-11 03:01 EST ------- what would you suggest as the fix? shell escaping the interior doublequotes? so it looks like this? ALL_LINGUAS= "`cat \"$srcdir/po/LINGUAS\"`" or removing the outer doublequotes so it looks like this? ALL_LINGUAS= `cat \"$srcdir/po/LINGUAS\"` -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 08:06:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225522] Review Request: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110806.l1B86oBs024520@bugzilla.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: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225522 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-11 03:06 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147846) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147846&action=view) mock build log of cinepaint-0.21.2-1.fc7 mockbuild of 0.21.2 failed on FC-7 i386. A quick note: * Please check BuildRequires - Does this need java (libgcj)? - Is this package gtk+ or gtk2? i.e. Using both glib2-devel and gtk+-devel is quite questionable. * For desktop: - Category "X-Fedora" is deprecated and should be removed. * File entry ------------------------------------ %{_datadir}/%{name}/%{cinever}/gimprc %{_datadir}/%{name}/%{cinever}/gimprc_user ....... (and so on) ------------------------------------ - ... %{_datadir}/%{name} is not owned by any package. - By the way, why don't you just write ------------------------------------- %{_datadir}/%{name}/ ------------------------------------- ? - Same for -------------------------------------- %{_libdir}/cinepaint/%{cinever} %dir %{_libdir}/cinepaint -------------------------------------- This description can be unified. * pkgconfig .pc files - Well, the description of .pc file cinepaint-gtk.pc is not on standard. Fix this file by using "Requires:" properly. - And this .pc file means that -devel package should need some packages as Requires. * automake requirement --------------------------------------------- %{_datadir}/aclocal/cinepaint.m4 --------------------------------------------- - This file should be -devel package - And current fedora standard is that this file adds "automake" to Requires (not BuildRequires) * python sitelib <-> sitearch - Why do these both directories needed? * For i386/ppc, these are same * For x86_64, these differ, and usually only one directory of the two should be used, not both. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 08:30:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:30:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110830.l1B8UJ7t025139@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-11 03:30 EST ------- The autoconf/gettext correct way would be to hard-code ALL_LINGUAS (Avoids a lot of trouble) Otherwise, as the problem they are trying to fix by quoting probably is white-spaces in srcdir, ALL_LINGUAS=`cat "${srcdir}"/po/LINGUAS` probably will work Another observation: Is this package under development? It uses a pretty much antiquated set of autotools (automake-1.7.4, obsolete for several years.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 08:46:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:46:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228186] Review Request: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110846.l1B8k5UN025884@bugzilla.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: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228186 ville.skytta at iki.fi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-11 03:46 EST ------- I suppose the reason this hasn't been in Fedora already earlier is patent concerns on GSM 06.10 (see eg. the project homepage for more info) - I suppose this requires an ack from legal before inclusion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 08:58:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 03:58:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702110858.l1B8w4Gu026789@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-11 03:58 EST ------- yes its under active development, 0.3 was just released in fact... hit the frontpage of freshmeat.net today. I'm not on the mailinglist...yet. But I was going to get signed up this weekend, after I've had a chance to get feedback on how the application works or does not work. I'm more than happy to compile a list of development issues to take to the upstream developer as well as application level feedback. In the meantime, it appears that a patch to the configure script using ALL_LINGUAS=`cat "${srcdir}/po/LINGUAS"` suffices. NEW Spec URL http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/usbsink/usbsink.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/usbsink/usbsink-0.3.0-2.fc6.src.rpm -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 10:21:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 05:21:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111021.l1BALEBK025500@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jspaleta at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 10:29:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 05:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111029.l1BATQIR026162@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-11 05:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > You could also > remove libglade2-devel from BR, unless you have an important reason to keep it > mentioned. libglade2 is also a direct dependency of etherape so it is fine to keep it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 10:46:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 05:46:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111046.l1BAkR56027151@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-11 05:46 EST ------- In some rare case there it isn't possible to have an url, when there was an upstream project, but it has disappeared and one happens to find a tarball somewhere. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 11:19:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 06:19:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111119.l1BBJlNS028213@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-11 06:19 EST ------- review checklist for cracklib Sumary NOT APPROVED. See the notes below for full details. Attached to this report is a diff of the specfile which includes all of my suggested changes. The package owner should review the diff if there are items which can not be incorporated, bring it up as a comment to this report for discussion. NOTE: Not all the blockers have been address in the specfile diff. There are items which the package owner must address which are not obvious specfile fixes. + GOOD - BAD + rpmlint... see the notes at the end. I've rolled in changes into the spec from the rpmlint log info + packagename is fine + specfile name is fine + license check Artistic , matches source license for SOURCE0, and LICENSE file included in %doc spec is english-ish - md5sum check of sources 9a8c9eb26b48787c84024ac779f64bb2 cracklib-2.8.9.tar.gz from SOURCE0 URL 9a8c9eb26b48787c84024ac779f64bb2 /home/jspaleta/rpmbuild/SOURCES/cracklib-2.8.9.tar.gz md5sum check: ASSurnames.gz: OK cartoon.gz: OK common-passwords.txt.gz: OK Congress.gz: OK cracklib-2.8.9.tar.gz: OK cracklib-words.gz: FAILED Domains.gz: OK Dosref.gz: OK etc-hosts.gz: OK famous.gz: OK fast-names.gz: OK female-names.gz: OK Ftpsites.gz: OK Given-Names.gz: OK Jargon.gz: OK LCarrol.gz: OK male-names.gz: OK Movies.gz: OK myths-legends.gz: OK names.french.gz: OK names.hp.gz: OK other-names.gz: OK Paradise.Lost.gz: OK Python.gz: OK sf.gz: OK shakespeare.gz: OK surnames.finnish.gz: OK Trek.gz: OK d18e670e5df560a8745e1b4dede8f84f cracklib-words.gz from SOURCE1 URL 575a44add4db95b43c7abb46b307950f /home/jspaleta/rpmbuild/SOURCES/cracklib-words.gz + mock build as done by matt http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/cracklib-2.8.9-8.src.rpm/result/ - buildrequires removed gzip as exception provided by buildsys...fixed in specfile diff + shared libs exist and ldconfig is run in the correct script actions + not designed to be relocatable + no duplicates in the files section + file permissions look okay to me - static libs are currently included in the -devel package.. this is a no no unless you have a good reason + docs section looks fine - devel subpackage, includes .so and headerfiles... and a static .a which it should not, unless it really really needs to. + no gui apps + no obvious duplicate file/directory ownership BAD *cracklib-words.gz included sources does NOT match upstream according to the checksum. This is a little sticky, since the upstream file is not versioned nor in a versioned directory. if upstream continues to update this file its difficult to make a version comparison to some known state. *pass-file.gz doesn't appear to have an upstream URL even though its listed as a source, so there is no upstream to md5sum to check against. If there is no upstream for this file, this should be at least noted as a comment in the specfile. I don't think this its super critical considering this is a dictionary file and not the functional codebase itself... but it definitely should be noted in the specfile that its an inhouse creation and why it was created. This one I can't fix in my specfile diff because I don't know why that file is there. *gzip as a buildrequires, removed in specfile diff as a buildsys provided exception * is there a compelling reason to include the static libcrack.a in the -devel package? The guidelines frown very heavily on including static libraries, and there needs to be a compelling reason to do so. Removed from the package in the specfile diff *cracklib-dicts needs cracklib because of the symlinks in /usr/sbin/ ...fixed in specfile diff. rpmlint log from dell ...reviewer comments inline rpmlint on cracklib-2.8.9-8.i386.rpm W: cracklib summary-ended-with-dot A password-checking library. ... fixed in specfile diff E: cracklib tag-not-utf8 %changelog ... fixed in specfile diff W: cracklib one-line-command-in-%trigger /sbin/ldconfig ... not sure about this one rpmlint on cracklib-2.8.9-8.src.rpm W: cracklib summary-ended-with-dot A password-checking library. E: cracklib tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: cracklib non-utf8-spec-file cracklib.spec ... fixed in specfile diff W: cracklib mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 102, tab: line 108) ... fixed in specfile diff rpmlint on cracklib-devel-2.8.9-8.i386.rpm W: cracklib-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development files needed for building applications which use cracklib. ... fixed in diff E: cracklib-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: cracklib-devel no-documentation ... bogus not important rpmlint on cracklib-python-2.8.9-8.i386.rpm W: cracklib-python summary-ended-with-dot Python bindings for applications which use cracklib. ... fixed in diff E: cracklib-python tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: cracklib-python no-documentation rpmlint on cracklib-dicts-2.8.9-8.i386.rpm W: cracklib-dicts summary-ended-with-dot The standard CrackLib dictionaries. ... fixed in diff E: cracklib-dicts tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: cracklib-dicts only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ... bogus all the /usr/lib/ files are links back to /usr/share/ W: cracklib-dicts no-documentation W: cracklib-dicts dangling-relative-symlink /usr/sbin/packer cracklib-packer ... bogus as long as cracklib is installed W: cracklib-dicts dangling-relative-symlink /usr/sbin/mkdict cracklib-format ... bogus as long as cracklib is installed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 11:21:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 06:21:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111121.l1BBLB2F028258@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-11 06:21 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147852) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147852&action=view) specfile diff which includes suggested fixes for merge review issues -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 11:22:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 06:22:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111122.l1BBM6o3028313@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jspaleta at gmail.com |nalin at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 11:57:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 06:57:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228186] Review Request: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111157.l1BBv2gV029072@bugzilla.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: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228186 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-11 06:56 EST ------- Recycling an old comment: [...] Based on moderate Googling, there is no evidence of public patent claims by Philips or any court cases specific to GSM 06.10 (they do hold patents > for much newer GSM technology). There's only second hand knowledge which dates back as far as Nov 2000: http://www.mail-archive.com/ietf at ietf.org/msg03976.html Jutta Deneger, one of the authors of the "gsm" package, also appears in that thread and has still not been contacted by Philips while she still offers the code on her home page. The patent analyzed in that thread, http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4932061.html expires in roughly more than one year. It is believed to not apply to GSM 06.10. [...] Remember, libsndfile contains a copy of "gsm" and also is in Fedora. The libsndfile author also is not aware of anything else than very vague rumours and therefore is unconcerned. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 13:19:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:19:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111319.l1BDJY60032113@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-11 08:19 EST ------- There is also the case of upstream projects which are hosted e.g. at sourceforge, where it is very hard to come up with a working url. The sourceforge download urls I have come up with had the filename as a parameter behind a '?', and rpmbuild does not grok that, it seems to assume that the filename part of the source url is always delimited by a '/' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 13:38:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:38:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111338.l1BDcrxP032619@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-11 08:38 EST ------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/$project/$tarball-$version.tar.gz works in those cases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 16:09:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:09:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225522] Review Request: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111609.l1BG8xEn005814@bugzilla.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: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225522 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-11 11:08 EST ------- For the build error: * Download step: gtk2-devel i386 2.10.9-3.fc7 cached 3.0 M gutenprint i386 5.0.0-5.fc7 local 2.7 M hicolor-icon-theme noarch 0.10-1 cached 32 k * Build error step: In file included from icc_common_funcs.c:38: print_gimp.h:50:41: error: gutenprintui/gutenprintui.h: No such file or directory ->> Need to enable BR gutenprint-devel... But it is already ! Can you figure out why it did not download it ? Maybe a cache issue, does this file exist on fc7 ? i wonder the path should be the same %{_includedir}/gutenprintui/*.h * pkgconfig .pc files Do i Really need a cinepaint-gtk-devel package? or use the cinepaint-devel one ? I may also need to sort headers... * cinepaint.m4 The content of this file produce errors when trying to rpmbuild package that run aclocal on my system...There is a need to check this file for its content! ----- /usr/shar/aclocal/cinepain.m4:8 warning: underquoted definition of AM_PATH_CINEPAINT run info '(automake)Extending aclocal' (ok i've read this...!) So it as i've understood i need to put all dnl inside the AC_DEFUN quotes... I will have to check this in install step or better ask for a upstream correction... ----- * BR : It requires gtk+-devel (which bring glib-devel) ------- checking for glib-config... no configure: WARNING: *** Check for glib-config failed. *** You can download Glib from http://www.gtk.org/ . *** As well check if the glib-devel or similiar package is installed on your *** linux distribution. checking for inline definition in glibconfig.h... no checking for inline... inline checking for gtk-config... no checking for GTK - version >= 1.2.8... no *** The gtk-config script installed by GTK could not be found *** If GTK was installed in PREFIX, make sure PREFIX/bin is in *** your path, or set the GTK_CONFIG environment variable to the *** full path to gtk-config. configure: WARNING: Test for GTK failed. See the file 'INSTALL' for help. ------ * Searching which BR is needed for this : checking for Python library... Not found ->> OK for an unknow reason, it seems to BR libgcj-devel! Waiting for cinepaint.m4 info before uploading... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 16:41:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:41:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225522] Review Request: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111641.l1BGfXcT006668@bugzilla.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: cinepaint - CinePaint is a tool for manipulating images https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225522 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-11 11:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > For the build error: > In file included from icc_common_funcs.c:38: > print_gimp.h:50:41: error: gutenprintui/gutenprintui.h: No such file or directory > ->> Need to enable BR gutenprint-devel... But it is already ! Can you figure > out why it did not download it ? Maybe a cache issue, does this file exist on > fc7 ? i wonder the path should be the same %{_includedir}/gutenprintui/*.h This is because: --------------------------------------------------- * Sat Jan 20 2007 Tim Waugh 5.0.0-4 - Disable libgutenprintui (GTK+ 1.2 library). Build requires gtk2-devel, not gtk+-devel. --------------------------------------------------- So FE-devel gutenprint-devel does not have gtk+ compatible gutenprintui header files. So either: - rebuild this with gtk2 (is it possible?) - or ask gutenprint maintainer (Tim Waugh) to support GTK+. > * pkgconfig .pc files > Do i Really need a cinepaint-gtk-devel package? or use the > cinepaint-devel one ? > I may also need to sort headers... What do you mean? What I said is that "rewrite cinepaint-gtk.pc by using "Requires" properly". For example, libglade-2.0.pc (in libglade2-devel) contains: -------------------------------------------------- prefix=/usr exec_prefix=/usr libdir=/usr/lib includedir=/usr/include moduledir=${libdir}/libglade/2.0 Name: Libglade Description: a library for dynamically loading GLADE interface files Version: 2.6.0 Requires: gtk+-2.0 libxml-2.0 <- Please write like this!! Libs: -L${libdir} -lglade-2.0 Cflags: -I${includedir}/libglade-2.0 -------------------------------------------------- > > * cinepaint.m4 The content of this file produce errors when trying to rpmbuild > package that run aclocal on my system...There is a need to check this file for > its content! ? What I meant is - This file should be moved to -devel package - Add "Requires: automake" to -devel package > * BR : It requires gtk+-devel (which bring glib-devel) What I said is why do you use gtk+-devel and glib*2*-devel (not glib-devel)? > > * Searching which BR is needed for this : > checking for Python library... Not found > ->> OK for an unknow reason, it seems to BR libgcj-devel! This is python!! Not java. Only you need is python-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 16:55:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:55:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111655.l1BGtk0X006951@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-11 11:55 EST ------- Now update to 0.2.3 SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/fuse-convmvfs-0.2.3-1.fc6.src.rpm RPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/fuse-convmvfs-0.2.3-1.fc6.i386.rpm Spec URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/yportages/FC-6/sys-fs/fuse-convmvfs/fuse-convmvfs.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 17:10:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:10:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 169704] Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111710.l1BHAZxh007402@bugzilla.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: mosml - Moscow ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169704 ------- Additional Comments From gemi at bluewin.ch 2007-02-11 12:10 EST ------- May we proceed with the review and exclude x86_64? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 17:16:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:16:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228208] New: Review Request: gtranslator - Gettext po file editor for GNOME 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=228208 Summary: Review Request: gtranslator - Gettext po file editor for GNOME Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: foolish at guezz.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/gtranslator.spec SRPM URL: http://folk.ntnu.no/sindrb/packages/gtranslator-1.1.7-1.src.rpm Description: This is a re-review. Package was orphaned and then picked up by me. See mailing list discussion here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-January/msg00487.html gtranslator is an enhanced gettext po file editor for the GNOME desktop environment. It handles all forms of gettext po files and features many comfortable everyday usage features like find and replace functions, auto translation, and translation learning, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 17:26:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:26:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111726.l1BHQU17007759@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-11 12:26 EST ------- Well, I will review this after I take a rest once (I live in Japan, EST+14h). By the way, it looks that this package is rather simple, so: -------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report so that I can check your comments or review request. Fedora Extras package review requests which are waiting for someone to review can be checked on: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=FE-NEW&hide_resolved=1 Review guidelines are described mainly on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ------------------------------------------------------------ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 17:38:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:38:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111738.l1BHcJTN007998@bugzilla.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: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 richard at hughsie.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |richard at hughsie.com ------- Additional Comments From richard at hughsie.com 2007-02-11 12:38 EST ------- Including this firmware will make a LOT of USB2 wireless cards Just Work. This is important for F7 if it is okay with legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 17:51:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:51:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111751.l1BHpIt3008255@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-11 12:51 EST ------- I get rid of _all_ warrnings from the code, and wait for author reviews. It pretty large of cleanup patch ~182k, there was some pretty serious issues too. Well, i am in wait now, olso proposed a soname versioning for the author. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 17:51:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:51:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111751.l1BHpgJb008289@bugzilla.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: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 17:53:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:53:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225118] Review Request: pyopengl - Standard OpenGL bindings for Python In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111753.l1BHrBvp008349@bugzilla.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: pyopengl - Standard OpenGL bindings for Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225118 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 18:58:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:58:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228212] New: Review Request: perl-Proc-Daemon - Run Perl program as a daemon process 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=228212 Summary: Review Request: perl-Proc-Daemon - Run Perl program as a daemon process Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/perl-Proc-Daemon.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/perl-Proc-Daemon-0.03-1.fc7.src.rpm Mock Log: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/perl-Proc-Daemon-build.log Description: This is version 0.03 of Proc::Daemon This module contains the routine Init which can be called by a Perl program to initialize itself as a daemon. A daemon is a process that runs in the background with no controlling terminal. Generally servers (like FTP and HTTP servers) run as daemon processes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 19:00:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:00:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224684] Review Request: cronolog - Web log rotation program for Apache In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111900.l1BJ0SaY010068@bugzilla.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: cronolog - Web log rotation program for Apache https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224684 jafo-redhat at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 19:08:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:08:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228186] Review Request: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111908.l1BJ8EDC010266@bugzilla.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: gsm - Shared libraries for GSM speech compressor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228186 ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-11 14:08 EST ------- I forgot to mention (although it might be clear from the .spec file) that this RPM is based on a DAG RPM. That may or may not help with patent issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 19:22:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:22:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228214] New: Review Request: poco - C++ POrtable COmponents framework 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=228214 Summary: Review Request: poco - C++ POrtable COmponents framework Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: arbiter at arbiterlab.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/81102/poco-spec.html SRPM URL: http://www.sharebigfile.com/file/81104/poco-1-2-8-1-src-rpm.html Description: POCO, the C++ Portable Components, is a collection of open source C++ class libraries that simplify and accelerate the development of network-centric, portable applications in C++. The libraries integrate perfectly with the C++ Standard Library and fill many of the functional gaps left open by it. Their modular and efficient design and implementation makes the C++ Portable Components extremely well suited for embedded development, an area where the C++ programming language is becoming increasingly popular, due to its suitability for both low-level (device I/O, interrupt handlers, etc.) and high-level object-oriented development. Of course, POCO is also ready for enterprise-level challenges. This is my first i package and I need a sponsor :-) (PS: Sorry for the download location but my personal web server is under maintnance, for now :-) ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 19:24:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228214] Review Request: poco - C++ POrtable COmponents framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111924.l1BJODGJ011177@bugzilla.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: poco - C++ POrtable COmponents framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228214 arbiter at arbiterlab.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 19:32:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:32:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226363] Merge Review: redhat-lsb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702111932.l1BJWSFj011603@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: redhat-lsb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226363 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-11 14:32 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147862) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147862&action=view) Use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00339.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 20:34:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:34:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702112034.l1BKYsNL013141@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |sgrubb at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-11 15:34 EST ------- Sorry for the delay in getting back to this review. Everything looks fixed except for 3 items... 1. On the AMTUHowTo.txt having DOS/win line endings, I guess that fixing that isn't a blocker. The rpmlint info for that says: "could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances." I am unsure what those circumstances would be. 2. Forgot to mention that your buildroot is not correct. You should use: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. Not sure what we can do about the upstream source not being somewhere that can be checked. The package review guidelines have: MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. There does appear to be an upstream source on the sourceforge project, but it's not the one you are shipping. Have you been able to contact the IBM source to update that project with the source you are shipping? Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 20:41:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:41:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702112041.l1BKfNHO013511@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-11 15:41 EST ------- In reply to comment #8: 1. True. I guess it's not a big deal either way if you list it or not. 2. ok. 4. ok. Might mention in this review just for completeness. 5. Well, since the package uses pkgconfig it's pretty easy to move things and have anything using the devel package pick up the correct include path. You are correct however in that it would be good for upstream to make this change. Is upstream responsive? Would they take a change like that? Can you ask them? Some of the headers have a rdf_ namespace, but at least 2 do not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 20:55:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702112055.l1BKth9P013889@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |varekova at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-11 15:55 EST ------- Thanks for the fixes. 3.3 looks fine. 3.4 looks ok, but you might just use a: sed -i 's/\r//' in the spec file instead of a patch that just replaces the entire file. Thats not a blocker, just a suggestion. I don't see any further issues here, this package is APPROVED. Thanks for the speedy fixes... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 21:15:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:15:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226307] Merge Review: postfix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702112115.l1BLF6Dp014402@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: postfix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226307 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-11 16:15 EST ------- I would be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 21:57:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:57:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702112157.l1BLvc7I016328@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 jafo-redhat at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From jafo-redhat at tummy.com 2007-02-11 16:57 EST ------- I've uploaded new spec and SRPM files, and have researched qmake and determined that the optimizer flags isn't something I can fix. SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin-0.3-5.src.rpm Spec URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin.spec RPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/FC6/moto4lin-0.3-5.i386.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 22:02:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:02:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702112202.l1BM2Lmx016447@bugzilla.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: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-11 17:02 EST ------- at a glance: you could use the official project website in URL: http://zd1211.ath.cx/ Source0 is usually a full download URL; for sf.net, I use something like: http://download.sourceforge.net/zd1211/%{name}%{version}.tar.bz2 you have a typo in: ln -s /liv/firmware/zd1211/README.zd1211 README the rest looks fine -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 22:36:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:36:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226307] Merge Review: postfix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702112236.l1BMaIB7016967@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: postfix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226307 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |twoerner at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-11 17:36 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (IBM Public License) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 24f3a076a2a1af0ca8dcb9bac3f145fa postfix-2.3.6.tar.gz 24f3a076a2a1af0ca8dcb9bac3f145fa postfix-2.3.6.tar.gz.1 See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. See below - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. See below - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 18 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Suggest: add a %{?dist} to release? Makes keeping several branches in sync much easier. 2. You should use the approved buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. 2.3.7 is out. Perhaps upgrade to that? 4. On mysql and pgsql support. Could both of those be enabled in subpackages? ie, postfix-pgsql, postfix-mysql? They can be quite usefull, and I don't know of any reason to not include them. 5. Shouldn't pflogsumm be it's own package? It has a separate upstream source. Was there a reason to include it in this package? Also, it has no dependency on postfix, but it installs a doc file into the postfix docdir, meaning if postfix wasn't installed and this package was installed, then removed, you will be left with a lingering postfix doc dir with nothing in it. If it was separate, it could also be noarch. 6. Our pal rpmlint is doing quite a bit of talking on this package. a) W: postfix prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service, sh-utils W: postfix prereq-use fileutils, textutils, W: postfix prereq-use /usr/sbin/alternatives W: postfix prereq-use %{_sbindir}/groupadd, %{_sbindir}/useradd The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. Take a look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-97754e2c646616c5f6222f0cfc6923c60765133e b) W: postfix unversioned-explicit-provides MTA W: postfix unversioned-explicit-provides smtpd W: postfix unversioned-explicit-provides smtpdaemon W: postfix unversioned-explicit-provides /usr/bin/newaliases W: postfix unversioned-explicit-provides /usr/sbin/sendmail W: postfix unversioned-explicit-provides /usr/bin/mailq W: postfix unversioned-explicit-provides /usr/bin/rmail E: postfix hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib E: postfix hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib E: postfix hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail.postfix E: postfix hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail.postfix These are due to the alternatives setup. I think this can be ignored. c) E: postfix use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR Suggest: replace %{_sourcedir} with $SOURCE1 ? d) W: postfix macro-in-%changelog _docdir Suggest: change macro to use %% in the changelog instead of % e) W: postfix mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 27, tab: line 315) Suggest: fix to all tabs or all spaces? f) E: postfix only-non-binary-in-usr-lib This is the pfloggsum subpackage. If it was split out to it's own package it could be noarch. g) W: postfix conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/postfix E: postfix executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/postfix Suggest: should not mark that init file as conf? h) E: postfix file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/sasl/smtpd.conf E: postfix file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/sasl2/smtpd.conf Might be a bug in cyrus-sasl putting it's config files there, but not postfix's fault. i) W: postfix service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/postfix Suggest: Do no enable by default in the init file. j) All these can be ignored I think. Please examine them and confirm that the permissions and uids are correct: E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/trace postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/trace 0700 E: postfix non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/postqueue postdrop E: postfix setgid-binary /usr/sbin/postqueue postdrop 02755 E: postfix non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/postqueue 02755 E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/defer postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/defer 0700 E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/saved postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/saved 0700 W: postfix non-conffile-in-etc /etc/postfix/postfix-files E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/corrupt postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/corrupt 0700 E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/deferred postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/deferred 0700 E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/flush postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/flush 0700 E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/public postfix E: postfix non-standard-gid /var/spool/postfix/public postdrop E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/public 0710 W: postfix non-conffile-in-etc /etc/postfix/TLS_LICENSE E: postfix non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/postdrop postdrop E: postfix setgid-binary /usr/sbin/postdrop postdrop 02755 E: postfix non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/postdrop 02755 E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/private postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/private 0700 W: postfix non-conffile-in-etc /etc/postfix/LICENSE E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/incoming postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/incoming 0700 E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/bounce postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/bounce 0700 E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/active postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/active 0700 W: postfix non-conffile-in-etc /etc/postfix/main.cf.default E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/hold postfix E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/hold 0700 E: postfix non-standard-uid /var/spool/postfix/maildrop postfix E: postfix non-standard-gid /var/spool/postfix/maildrop postdrop E: postfix non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/postfix/maildrop 0730 7. The dependencies on perl here all seem to be due to the qshape script. Would it be worth splitting that script out as well? That would remove: perl(File::Find) perl(Getopt::Std) perl(IO::File) perl(strict) /usr/bin/perl Requires from the postfix package. 8. 18 outstanding bugs. Several of them seem related directly to the packaging. Perhaps address those as part of the review here? 9. The LDAP conditionals mention redhat 8.0. Can we now just drop that stuff for f7/fc6/fc5? 10. Some unneeded Buildrequires: BuildRequires: gawk, perl, sed, ed, db4-devel, pkgconfig, zlib-devel See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions Can remove perl, sed at least, and possibly gawk and ed. 11. In the pfloggsumm subpackage Requires: perl-Date-Calc is not needed. rpm picks up on that itself. 12. Why is the umask 022 line there in %build and %install and several other sections? 13. Might use %{?_smp_mflags} in the make line to speed up build times? Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 23:45:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:45:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702112345.l1BNjgqH018547@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-11 18:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > 1. I did not change the RHCLEAN. This is because I am unsure if it is really > okay to put jars in tarballs. That used to be the case in Fedora packages > before, and gbenson had updated all tarballs to remove the jars. Has the policy > changed again? I don't think that was ever an official policy. We really shouldn't be mucking with the drops unless there's some legal reason (encryption or closed source) to do so. In this case, if you don't want to ship the binary jars, just add the removing of them to the steps used to make the tarball. Drop the RHCLEAN. > 2. I did not remove the epoch. I don't recall why that exists there in the first > place, but I remember fnasser mentioning that it was necessary for packages to > work correctly. I will send him a mail asking about this. This is a JPackage thing to deal with older, broken RPMs. It's not strictly against the guidelines but it's unnecessary. I won't hold up the review on it, though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 23:49:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:49:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702112349.l1BNna9L018623@bugzilla.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: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-11 18:49 EST ------- Ok fixed... Two questions: - Do i need to bundle the source needed to generate the firmware with it? I don't know yet how to generate it from the source yet... - It need to be tested more widely specially for the difference between 1.2 and 1.3 (see the readme). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 11 23:51:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:51:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702112351.l1BNpuaK018689@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-11 18:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > I fixed the buildroot name, changed license to BSD, removed the commented > build-classpath line, expanded the summary a bit, updated source location to the > svn tag, and made the BR and Requires same (except for ant, which is strictly a BR). Great, thanks. The only thing I'd like to see changed is the instructions on how to generate the tarball. Something like: # mkdir adaptx-0.9.13-src && cd adaptx-0.9.13-src # svn export http://svn.codehaus.org/castor/adaptx/tags/0.9.13/ # mv 0.9.13/* . # rmdir 0.9.13 # cd .. # tar cjf adaptx-0.9.13-src.tar.bz2 adaptx-0.9.13-src I also don't think the removal of CVS directories is necessary, is it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 02:17:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:17:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] New: Review Request: eb - ebook library 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=228241 Summary: Review Request: eb - ebook library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: petersen at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/eb.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/eb-4.3-1.src.rpm Description: Library for accessing Japanese CD-ROM electronic books in EB, EBG, EBXA, EBXA-C, S-EBXA, and EPWING format. http://www.sra.co.jp/people/m-kasahr/eb/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 02:56:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:56:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] New: Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program 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=228243 Summary: Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: petersen at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/eblook.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/eblook-1.6.1-1.src.rpm Description: eblook is a command-line EB and EPWING dictionary search program. http://openlab.ring.gr.jp/edict/eblook/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 02:57:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:57:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120257.l1C2vdU5024432@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |228243 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 03:39:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228214] Review Request: poco - C++ POrtable COmponents framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120339.l1C3dtB2026216@bugzilla.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: poco - C++ POrtable COmponents framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228214 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |163776 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 04:09:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120409.l1C49H7I027531@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-11 23:09 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > I fixed the buildroot name, changed license to BSD, removed the commented > > build-classpath line, expanded the summary a bit, updated source location to the > > svn tag, and made the BR and Requires same (except for ant, which is strictly > a BR). > > Great, thanks. The only thing I'd like to see changed is the instructions on > how to generate the tarball. Something like: > > # mkdir adaptx-0.9.13-src && cd adaptx-0.9.13-src > # svn export http://svn.codehaus.org/castor/adaptx/tags/0.9.13/ > # mv 0.9.13/* . > # rmdir 0.9.13 > # cd .. > # tar cjf adaptx-0.9.13-src.tar.bz2 adaptx-0.9.13-src > > I also don't think the removal of CVS directories is necessary, is it? > Done. I have removed the epoch, and added instructions on how to generate the tarballs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 04:30:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:30:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120430.l1C4UGAW028932@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-11 23:30 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url d2c8750f35ae8be79956958e2b653e32 ack-1.56.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Provides: perl(App::Ack) = 1.56 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 04:32:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:32:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120432.l1C4WAZ0029038@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-11 23:32 EST ------- Yes that will be good to bump to next release number. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 04:34:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120434.l1C4YmRO029260@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-11 23:34 EST ------- Everything looks Ok to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 04:36:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:36:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120436.l1C4aQNU029407@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-11 23:36 EST ------- APPROVED Thanks, Deepak. Now you just need to rebuild it in brew and when it hits rawhide I'll close this RAWHIDE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 04:36:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:36:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120436.l1C4amdf029434@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-11 23:36 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 04:47:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:47:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228212] Review Request: perl-Proc-Daemon - Run Perl program as a daemon process In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120447.l1C4lp7l030179@bugzilla.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-Proc-Daemon - Run Perl program as a daemon process https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228212 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-11 23:47 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 6e1b83ac0f0add22f63597733f38c973 Proc-Daemon-0.03.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/00modload.......ok t/01filecreate....ok All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=2, 5 wallclock secs ( 0.05 cusr + 0.01 csys = 0.06 CPU) + Provides: perl(Proc::Daemon) = 0.03 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 04:48:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:48:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228212] Review Request: perl-Proc-Daemon - Run Perl program as a daemon process In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120448.l1C4mec2030292@bugzilla.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-Proc-Daemon - Run Perl program as a daemon process https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228212 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-11 23:48 EST ------- APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 04:57:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:57:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120457.l1C4vKwK030908@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 04:59:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:59:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120459.l1C4xwpX031054@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-11 23:59 EST ------- Mock build is fine. But got rpmlint warnings for main and devel package as W: eb conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/eb.conf A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file: %config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here W: eb-devel summary-not-capitalized eb libray development files Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 05:00:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:00:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120500.l1C50J23031097@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-12 00:00 EST ------- Thanks for all the suggestions. AdaptX has been built in brew and this bug may now be closed any time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 05:12:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:12:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228208] Review Request: gtranslator - Gettext po file editor for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120512.l1C5CSAR031427@bugzilla.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: gtranslator - Gettext po file editor for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228208 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 05:20:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:20:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228208] Review Request: gtranslator - Gettext po file editor for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120520.l1C5Kgef031723@bugzilla.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: gtranslator - Gettext po file editor for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228208 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 00:20 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM + source files match upstream. 47531195b74b22a6284dad609377cbb0 gtranslator-1.1.7.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + translations are available. + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + Used Scrollkeeper-update scriptlet. + file permissions are appropriate. + Desktop file installed correctly. + GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 06:53:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:53:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120653.l1C6rrXq002139@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-12 01:53 EST ------- == Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored == Mock build for FC6 i386 is sucessfull * MUST Items - rpmlint supressed rpmlint errors: W: sdcc dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/sdcc-sdcc sdcc W: sdcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/pic/libsdcc/uint 2fs.c (...hundreds of files alike this) - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. remove the explicit lib require of gc - A package must own all directories that it creates. I think you must own %{_datadir}/sdcc/ %{_libexecdir}/sdcc/ instead of the files in it. SHOULD Items: - A copy of licence in doc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 07:01:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:01:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120701.l1C71jsR002402@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-12 02:01 EST ------- I pre-reviewed this request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 And the SPEC URL updated to this : ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/fuse-convmvfs.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 07:09:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:09:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120709.l1C79DcO002695@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 07:15:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:15:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120715.l1C7F7vH002881@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 02:15 EST ------- looks nice feature this package is having. mock build is fine but rpmlint reports following warnings. W: usbsink spelling-error-in-description containes contains You made a misspelling in the Description. Please double-check. W: usbsink mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 17) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. = > use sed -i -e 's|\t| |g' usbsink.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 07:34:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 02:34:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120734.l1C7YgmO003421@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-12 02:34 EST ------- that's what i get for copying and pasting from the upstream website. new srpm rpmlint's cleanly http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/usbsink/usbsink.spec http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/usbsink/usbsink-0.3.0-3.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 08:04:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228255] New: Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation tools 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=228255 Summary: Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation tools Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jerone at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://jgotech.net/jerone/grub-1.95/grub2.spec SRPM URL: http://jgotech.net/jerone/grub-1.95/grub2-1.95-1.src.rpm Description: Grub 2 is the next generation of grub tools. The rpms I have provided provide a way for grub2 to be installed and coexist with in harmony with a grub legacy installation. By having these package will allow for testing and development of grub2 to accelerate, as well as allow users to try key features while still having the ability to revert back to grub legacy. So now all commands have "grub2" as a prefix. So instead of "grub-install" it's "grub2-install". Also installs files to "/boot/grub2" when run "grub2-install". Information on writing the config file for grub2 (which is grub.cfg) can be found: http://grub.enbug.org/grub.cfg Grub Dev wiki: http://grub.enbug.org/ Grub: http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 08:20:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:20:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120820.l1C8KEZi004858@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-12 03:20 EST ------- Thanks. Should be fixed in: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/eb.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/eb-4.3-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 08:22:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:22:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120822.l1C8MT1M004998@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 08:27:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:27:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120827.l1C8Rq8I005393@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-12 03:27 EST ------- BTW rpmlint now complains for me: E: eb description-line-too-long EB ?????? CD-ROM ???????????? C ????????? But I guess this is based on the length of the utf-8 bytes not the number of characters. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 08:48:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 03:48:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227955] Review Request: yum-refresh-updatesd - Tell yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702120848.l1C8mas1006570@bugzilla.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: yum-refresh-updatesd - Tell yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227955 ------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk 2007-02-12 03:48 EST ------- Hi James. Just an idea, what about including this one into yum-util ??? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 10:03:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:03:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121003.l1CA3L0T012646@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From thomas at apestaart.org 2007-02-12 05:03 EST ------- wrt. 5: - upstream is relatively responsive, but I only ever sent one patch upstream - pkg-config is not the only way they provide paths to developer apps, they also have redland-config - there is nothing as such wrong with installing headers in /usr/include, it is merely a style issue. While I personally much prefer projects that care about these issues and use subdirectories, and do so in my own projects, it is IMO not a requirement and not a maintainer's call to make. I personally get hugely annoyed when a downstream packager does something to one of my projects that really should be the maintainer's call. Changing stuff like this is a cost to users/developers of the package that gets paid by the upstream maintainer, not the packager. - further examples of packages on my system that install headers in /usr/include directly: gd, gmp, libidn, libjpeg, js, mx, openldap, libodbc, pilot-link, libtiff, libtermcap, zlib -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 10:08:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:08:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208398] Review Request: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121008.l1CA862V012985@bugzilla.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: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208398 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 05:08 EST ------- Updated package Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/luvcview/luvcview.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/luvcview/luvcview-20070107-1.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 10:21:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:21:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208398] Review Request: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121021.l1CALEwB013825@bugzilla.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: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208398 ------- Additional Comments From Giuseppe.Castagna at ens.fr 2007-02-12 05:21 EST ------- The update package works fine with the latest standard kernel. Linux thallium 2.6.19-1.2895.fc6 #1 SMP Wed Jan 10 18:50:56 EST 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Just, why did you renamed the binary to uvcview instead of luvcview? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 10:54:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:54:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121054.l1CAsgGr016560@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-12 05:54 EST ------- preliminary update. Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-5.src.rpm Preliminary fix: a) zero compile warrn b) do the right thing with dlopen. (re-work) c) fix --target=i386 build. d) test program functionality. Working with maintainer to get in: 0) cleanup all sources: a. UTF8 b. remuve junks c. dos2unix d. chmod fix. 1) cleanup patch 2) soname patch (i proposed to him a final one) 3) dlopen patch (reworked, and proposed final one) 4) hide plugins by default into /usr/lib/ogdi folder. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 10:57:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:57:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121057.l1CAvdOM016713@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 05:57 EST ------- you can install icon file also. I saw in mock build.log *** Icon cache not updated. After install, run this: *** gtk-update-icon-cache -f -t /usr/share/icons/hicolor You can use gtk-update-icon-cache scriptlet -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 10:59:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:59:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208398] Review Request: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121059.l1CAx0RW016755@bugzilla.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: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208398 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 05:58 EST ------- ohh upstream renamed it to luvcview now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 11:07:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:07:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208398] Review Request: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121107.l1CB7fsA017106@bugzilla.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: luvcview - Webcam Viewer Application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208398 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 06:07 EST ------- Updated package Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/luvcview/luvcview.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/luvcview/luvcview-20070107-2.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 11:22:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121122.l1CBMvn0017739@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 06:22 EST ------- Got W: eb incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.3-1 4.3-2.fc7 The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. Strange i did not see error you said on my machine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 11:28:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:28:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121128.l1CBSokv017891@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 06:28 EST ------- Anyway here comes review Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM. - rpmlint is not silent for RPM but its a simple warning that can be solved while importing a package. + source files match upstream. f7aee92355cae7e4c81cf26df4345b07 eb-4.3.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + COPYING included in %doc. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + -devel subpackage exists + no scriptlets are used. + no .la files. + translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 12:15:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:15:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121215.l1CCFgsu019380@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 ------- Additional Comments From rkhadgar at redhat.com 2007-02-12 07:15 EST ------- gimmie borks on rawhide. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/gimmie/gimmie_gui.py", line 253, in do_raise self.tooltip.position_to_rect(rect, screen) SystemError: Python/getargs.c:1245: bad argument to internal function -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 12:16:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:16:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121216.l1CCGX1j019422@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 07:16 EST ------- Well, kazehakase upstream Ikezoe sent me a patch against gail 1.10.1 and with the patch deluge doesn't seem to hang up any longer, so I suspect the problem is due to gail, not deluge more and more. So Peter, would you fix the issue I commented on comment 15? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 12:33:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:33:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121233.l1CCXceM020114@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 07:33 EST ------- mockbuild failed as zlib-devel is not present in BuildRequires When added above BR, mock build is fine but rpmlint on RPM gave W: eblook file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/eblook.info.gz The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it in the specfile for example using iconv(1). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 12:34:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121234.l1CCYmqU020172@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-12 07:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #24) > preliminary update. > Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec > SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-5.src.rpm it is http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-6.src.rpm > Preliminary fix: > a) zero compile warrn > b) do the right thing with dlopen. (re-work) > c) fix --target=i386 build. > d) test program functionality. > > Working with maintainer to get in: > 0) cleanup all sources: a. UTF8 b. remuve junks c. dos2unix d. chmod fix. Having stuff not in UTF-8 isn't a bug. It is upstream choice. Same may be true or not for dos2unix, it depends on the precise situation. > 1) cleanup patch > 2) soname patch (i proposed to him a final one) > 3) dlopen patch (reworked, and proposed final one) > 4) hide plugins by default into /usr/lib/ogdi folder. You should also give them the pkgconfig file. For that you could send them A file named ogdi.pc.in with something along: prefix=@prefix@ exec_prefix=@prefix@ libdir=@libdir@ includedir=@includedir@ Name: @PACKAGE@ Description: Open Geographic Datastore Interface Version: @VERSION@ Cflags: -I${includedir}/@PACKAGE@ Libs: -L${libdir} -logdi Libs.private: -lproj -lexpat -lz And you should add it to the files generatd by configure.ac, and also maybe add a installation target, or let it to the packager/end user. Also you could also propose the projects include patch to upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 12:49:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:49:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] New: Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok 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=228272 Summary: Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: faucamp at csir.co.za QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/amarokFS.spec SRPM URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/amarokFS-0.4.2-1.src.rpm Description: AmarokFS (Amarok Full Screen) is a full screen front-end for Amarok that provides a simple and nice looking graphical user interface. It is very suitable for parties and public terminals. The front-end's appearance can be customized using themes. This package also contains a script that allows AmarokFS to be launched from within Amarok itself. Package builds in mock (fc6/i386) and on x86_64. rpmlint is silent. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 12:50:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:50:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121250.l1CCoZPp021080@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-12 07:50 EST ------- Better, create a patch (with the help of iconv) and apply the patch in the specfile. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 12:54:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:54:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121254.l1CCscfY021342@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-12 07:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > wrt. 5: > - there is nothing as such wrong with installing headers in /usr/include, it is > merely a style issue. Sorry, this is not a "mere style" issue. - It affects effectiveness of compilers when searching /usr/include (N files/dirs more to stat). - It raises the potential of file conflicts. - /usr/include is "special" ONE package isn't much of a problem, but 10's or 100's are. > While I personally much prefer projects that care about > these issues and use subdirectories, and do so in my own projects, it is IMO not > a requirement and not a maintainer's call to make. I personally get hugely > annoyed when a downstream packager does something to one of my projects that > really should be the maintainer's call. My position is opposite: * /usr/include is the "system-include" directory and should largely be reserved to essential system packages (Many of them are covered by standards, e.g. POSIX). * In many cases, upstream doesn't care about this because they assume their package to be installed into a "per package" hierarchy (/opt/ or similar) so they aren't aware about the issues their habits could cause. * I consider a maintainer who is not able to work around this or unwilling to address this issue, to be acting a careless and negligent (I am waiting for the day, somebody installs a file named "stdint.h", or "list" to /usr/include) > Changing stuff like this is a cost to > users/developers of the package that gets paid by the upstream maintainer, not > the packager. CPPFLAGS=-I/usr/include/ > - further examples of packages on my system that install headers in /usr/include > directly: gd, gmp, libidn, libjpeg, js, mx, openldap, libodbc, pilot-link, > libtiff, libtermcap, zlib Yes, many of them all in the same boat, but .. many of them are out of control of Extras. Some of these packages however have evolved into "essential system libs" (e.g.. zlib) which would justify installing their headers to /usr/include, redland definitely is not one of these. Also, you should be aware that FE-policy so far had been, headers can go to "/usr/include, if a package installs very few headers which are almost guaranteed never to conflict". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 13:07:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:07:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121307.l1CD7Ijf021997@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 08:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Better, create a patch (with the help of iconv) and apply the > patch in the specfile. It is quite usual for Japanese document to use simply iconv. Creating patch results in making the patch contain both EUC-JP and UTF-8 characters and the patch cannot be seen easily. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 13:18:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:18:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121318.l1CDIKa6022540@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-12 08:18 EST ------- In general, running iconv can silently break the file, e.g. when it is encoded in the target encoding already and when iconv doesn't encounter any illegal encoding. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 13:35:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:35:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121335.l1CDZuO1023144@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 08:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > e.g. when it > is encoded in the target encoding already and when iconv doesn't > encounter any illegal encoding. I think you are raising an example which won't usually happen... Anyway, it is usual to use iconv, i.e. iconv -f EUC-JP -t UTF-8 foo.txt > foo.txt.tmp && \ mv -f foo.txt.tmp foo.txt || rm -f foo.txt.tmp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 13:40:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:40:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121340.l1CDeRKS023408@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From kzak at redhat.com 2007-02-12 08:40 EST ------- I'm not sure with -doc sub-package. There is already all docs in man pages and info files. Maybe we waste a space on mirrors and CDs with this *.ps docs and we should remove it at all. I think 1% of people who look for printable docs can found it at ftp.gnu.org -- we can add there README.pritable-docs with link to ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gawk/gawk-%{version}-ps.tar.gz. Comments? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 13:52:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:52:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121352.l1CDqiDq024228@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-12 08:52 EST ------- Try that when "foo.txt" is UTF-8 already, because for example upstream syncs with changes found in an rpm. iconv either creates invalid output silently or throws an error. The latter is good, the former is bad. Using a patch avoids that case. Btw, my comment is not specific to iconv. It also applies to other spec inline hacks (sed, Perl, and more). Breakage we've encountered before in Fedora packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:00:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:00:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121400.l1CE0wYd025040@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-12 09:00 EST ------- worksforme on x86_64 rawhide. I guess it mean there's probably a needed python module that I've failed to include in the Requires tags, will investigate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:04:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:04:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121404.l1CE4xGf025488@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 09:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Try that when "foo.txt" is UTF-8 already, So.. this should not happen. Why don't you check the encoding beforehand? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:07:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:07:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121407.l1CE7pxu025864@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From kzak at redhat.com 2007-02-12 09:07 EST ------- All items are fixed in gawk-3.1.5-15.fc7 (it's without PS files and a sub-package). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:09:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:09:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121409.l1CE9lbm026186@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 kzak at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:09:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:09:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121409.l1CE9vuD026226@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 09:09 EST ------- By the way.. EUC-JP and UTF-8 encondings are quite different, so when trying to "already UTF-8 encoded" Japanese text from EUC-JP to UTF-8, this fails 100%. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:14:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:14:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121414.l1CEERN3026649@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-12 09:14 EST ------- I don't think those docs are useful because they are printable but because they are viewable. I personally think that it would be nice to have something easier to view on a display than info files. And also that it would make sense to have that on the media for something as basic as awk. It is certainly used in scripts permitting network access. It is not a blocker for me anyway, only a suggestion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:18:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:18:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228279] New: Review Request: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary 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=228279 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-bg.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-bg-0.20040405-1.src.rpm Description: Bulgarian hunspell dictionary 1) http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Dictionaries#Bulgarian_.28Bulgaria.29 2) GPL 3) splits this dictionary out of OOo to becomes a standalone package which can be independently updated and reused by other applications, e.g. firefox when it moves to hunspell very similar to #227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:20:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:20:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121420.l1CEKWtH027349@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-12 09:20 EST ------- +soname proposal, final. Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.5-7.src.rpm I think this is the final shape for now, including all patches that need to be upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:29:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:29:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121429.l1CETBX0028254@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 09:29 EST ------- Well, (In reply to comment #10) > SRPM URL: > ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/fuse-convmvfs-0.2.3-1.fc6.src.rpm * Documentation - Please add more documents ------------------------------------------- AUTHORS NEWS ------------------------------------------- - "INSTALL" is not needed because this is needed when trying to install by themselves. * URL Which URL is preferable, http://sourceforge.net/projects/fuse-convmvfs/ or http://fuse-convmvfs.sourceforge.net/ ? Then, for your pre-review of 226795 - Well, this package seems somewhat special. For compiler package, the files, which usually should be in -devel package for other cases, are allowed to (and quite often, should) be in main package. But other pre-reviews seems good. Okay.. ---------------------------------------------------- This package (fuse-convmvfs) is APPROVED by me. ---------------------------------------------------- Please follow the procedure of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors . During the procedure, I will receive a mail which tells that you need a sponsor and the I will sponsor you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:34:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:34:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121434.l1CEYo9W028609@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-12 09:34 EST ------- > Why don't you check the encoding beforehand? Because the spec file would not do that either. It would run iconv with hardcoded options, regardless of what encoding is used in the input file actually. Anyway, I believe my message has become clear. Whether all sequences in an UTF-8 stream are invalid EUC-JP encodings is beyond the scope of my initial comment. That is an assertion that doesn't hold true for a few common other conversions, e.g. ISO Latin-1 to UTF-8. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:46:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:46:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121446.l1CEkZfJ029430@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-12 09:46 EST ------- > Requires: perl(File::Next) >= 0.38 That one is automatically set by rpmbuild already, isn't it? > %setup -q -n ack-%{version} -n %{name}-%{version} is automatic already > make %{?_smp_mflags} SMP make flags in a noarch build are superfluous. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:54:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:54:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121454.l1CEsQV3030002@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-12 09:54 EST ------- How about getting %check make test included in the package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 14:58:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:58:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227057] Review Request: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121458.l1CEwLls030252@bugzilla.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: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227057 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:02:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:02:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121502.l1CF2aAo030717@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |vivekl at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:07:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:07:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121507.l1CF7paf031158@bugzilla.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: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:15:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:15:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121515.l1CFFZK0031739@bugzilla.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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:27:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:27:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121527.l1CFRRUq032483@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-12 10:27 EST ------- Ok you can review now this -7 ? Those patches will be merged soon as win32 build is proven olso, agreed with the maintainer and actualy i became co-maintainer :-) /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:30:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228279] Review Request: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121530.l1CFUOOC032674@bugzilla.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: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228279 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |caolanm at redhat.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-12 10:30 EST ------- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 949cff5c527a1dd8c0ec4b6035a34a50e81ec7af bg_BG.zip - the package builds in mock, devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag seems identical to the one included (in Bulgarian..) in the sources - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint is silent on both source and binary rpm - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just a 2.5K text file - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:33:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:33:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227117] Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121533.l1CFXaD8000496@bugzilla.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: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:34:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:34:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228279] Review Request: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121534.l1CFYPkc000553@bugzilla.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: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228279 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:35:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227955] Review Request: yum-refresh-updatesd - Tell yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121535.l1CFZ7fY000634@bugzilla.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: yum-refresh-updatesd - Tell yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227955 jbowes at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From jbowes at redhat.com 2007-02-12 10:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Hi James. > > Just an idea, what about including this one into yum-util ??? > > That's a great idea. I'm going to close this bug then. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:43:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:43:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228291] New: Review Request: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary 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=228291 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ca.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ca-0.20021015-1.src.rpm Description: Catalan Hunspell dictionary similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:48:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:48:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121548.l1CFm7C1002320@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 10:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #24) > anyway it stops at: > /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/gdal-1.4.0/install-sh -c .libs/libgdal.lai /var/tmp/gdal-1.4.0-root/usr/lib64/libgdal.la > install: .libs/libgdal.lai does not exist > make: *** [install-lib] Error 1 > > becouse i removed rpath is this failure. > if have a chance to look into would be fine, i try too to look into, > but it will take a while. By the way, why did you remove rpath? libtool uses rpath, and when I disabled to remove rpath, compilation succeeded and the created binaries don't seem to have rpath (checked by /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker). For -3: * doxygen is needed for BuildRequires * And why doxygen is needed for Requires of main package? * Why -python package needs development package for Requires? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:50:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:50:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227057] Review Request: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121550.l1CFoJi8002814@bugzilla.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: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227057 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-12 10:50 EST ------- Review Comments - result of rpmlint W: gnu-regexp non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java E: gnu-regexp tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: gnu-regexp unknown-key GPG#c431416d E: gnu-regexp non-utf8-spec-file gnu-regexp.spec W: gnu-regexp unversioned-explicit-provides gnu.regexp W: gnu-regexp unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnu.regexp W: gnu-regexp unversioned-explicit-provides gnu.regexp-demo W: gnu-regexp unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnu.regexp-demo W: gnu-regexp unversioned-explicit-provides gnu.regexp-javadoc W: gnu-regexp unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnu.regexp-javadoc W: gnu-regexp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 48) - Spec file name should be gnu-regexp.spec - release should be of form: Xjpp.Y%{?dist} where only X and Y are variables X=upstream number and Y is local number starting with 1 - preferred buildroot is: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - it would nice in the future to add gcj support (at that time, remove the Buildarch: noarch statement ** rpmlint on binary rpms [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp.noarch.rpm W: gnu-regexp non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java E: gnu-regexp tag-not-utf8 %changelog [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint gnu-regexp-demo-1.1.4-10jpp.noarch.rpm W: gnu-regexp-demo non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java E: gnu-regexp-demo tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: gnu-regexp-demo no-documentation [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint gnu-regexp-javadoc-1.1.4-10jpp.noarch.rpm W: gnu-regexp-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation E: gnu-regexp-javadoc tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: gnu-regexp-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: gnu-regexp-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:50:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:50:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228293] New: Review Request: gkrellm-moon - Moon clock plugin for GKrellM 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=228293 Summary: Review Request: gkrellm-moon - Moon clock plugin for GKrellM Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matthias at rpmforge.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/gkrellm-moon/ SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/gkrellm-moon/ Description: A moon clock plugin for GKrellM. This is a pretty trivial package. Notes : - The name "gkrellmoon" has been changed to be in the "gkrellm-*" namespace. - No configure, so the Makefile's FLAGS have been (ab)used to pass our optflags. - Explicit "gkrellm" requirement set because of the version it needs. - The very similar "gkrellm-sun" package will also be submitted by itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:50:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:50:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228294] New: Review Request: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM 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=228294 Summary: Review Request: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matthias at rpmforge.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/gkrellm-sun/ SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/gkrellm-sun/ Description: A sun clock plugin for GKrellM which can display the sun's setting time, rising time, path and current location and so on. This is a pretty trivial package. Notes : - The name "gkrellsun" has been changed to be in the "gkrellm-*" namespace. - No configure, so the Makefile's FLAGS have been (ab)used to pass our optflags. - Explicit "gkrellm" requirement set because of the version it needs. - The very similar "gkrellm-moon" package will also be submitted by itself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:51:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228294] Review Request: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121551.l1CFplTc003059@bugzilla.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: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228294 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-12 10:51 EST ------- The gkrellm-moon package is bug #228293 in case someone wants to review both packages at once and save testing time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:51:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:51:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227057] Review Request: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121551.l1CFpxLo003092@bugzilla.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: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227057 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |fitzsim at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:52:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:52:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228293] Review Request: gkrellm-moon - Moon clock plugin for GKrellM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121552.l1CFq9qm003115@bugzilla.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: gkrellm-moon - Moon clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228293 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-12 10:51 EST ------- The gkrellm-sun package is bug #228294 in case someone wants to review both packages at once and save testing time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:52:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:52:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228295] New: Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game 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=228295 Summary: Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/kbilliards.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/kbilliards-0.8.7b-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: A billiards simulator game designed for KDE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:55:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:55:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227046] Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121555.l1CFtHGx003561@bugzilla.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: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227046 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:56:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:56:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121556.l1CFuDDl003753@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-12 10:56 EST ------- r-path ?! hmm, ok. so r-path fixed. Ok, fixed issues, so updated to -4. (same url) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 15:59:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:59:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228296] New: Review Request: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module 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=228296 Summary: Review Request: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matthias at rpmforge.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-lirc/ SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-lirc/ Description: pyLirc is a module for Python that interacts with lirc to give Python programs the ability to receive commands from remote controls. Notes : - This is fairly trivial python module package. Source is one single C file! - The original source does not contain a copy of the GPL, which is why it isn't included, but the C file does contain the correct license information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:01:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:01:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121601.l1CG1s0q004354@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 11:01 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147907) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147907&action=view) Spec file with AOT added -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:03:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:03:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228291] Review Request: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121603.l1CG32Jt004448@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228291 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |caolanm at redhat.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-12 11:02 EST ------- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 6e65cf6740f92f5faf74fbde43021d0fceb986b0 ca_ES.zip - the package builds in mock, devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - MINOR: unneeded BR: unzip - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint is silent on both src and binary rpm - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just a 31K text file - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED Obs: upstreamid seems wrong. The date of the files is 12-Apr-2004, not 15-oct-2002. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:05:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:05:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228298] New: Review Request: python-louie - Dispatches signals between Python objects in a wide variety of contexts 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=228298 Summary: Review Request: python-louie - Dispatches signals between Python objects in a wide variety of contexts Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matthias at rpmforge.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-louie/ SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-louie/ Description: Louie provides Python programmers with a straightforward way to dispatch signals between objects in a wide variety of contexts. It is based on PyDispatcher, which in turn was based on a highly-rated recipe in the Python Cookbook. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:05:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:05:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121605.l1CG5thu004936@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-12 11:05 EST ------- comment #10 is still valid. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:08:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:08:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228291] Review Request: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121608.l1CG8DwE005188@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228291 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-12 11:08 EST ------- sorry, the "MINOR .." line is a wrong paste, please ignore it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:09:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:09:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228299] New: Review Request: python-metar - Coded METAR weather reports parser for Python 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=228299 Summary: Review Request: python-metar - Coded METAR weather reports parser for Python Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matthias at rpmforge.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-metar/ SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-metar/ Description: Python package that parses coded METAR weather reports. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:13:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:13:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121613.l1CGD7lW005519@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-12 11:12 EST ------- updated. ver -8, same URL. BTW, merged half of patches mainline. /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:13:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:13:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228301] New: Review Request: python-nevow - Web application construction kit written in Python 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=228301 Summary: Review Request: python-nevow - Web application construction kit written in Python Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matthias at rpmforge.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-nevow/ SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-nevow/ Description: Nevow (pronounced as the French "nouveau", or "noo-voh") is a web application construction kit written in Python. It is designed to allow the programmer to express as much of the view logic as desired in Python. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:17:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:17:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228303] New: Review Request: python-tag - Python bindings for TagLib to read and write music files tags 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=228303 Summary: Review Request: python-tag - Python bindings for TagLib to read and write music files tags Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matthias at rpmforge.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-tag/ SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-tag/ Description: TagPy is a Python crust (or a set of Python bindings) for TagLib, which allows to read and write ID3 tags of version 1 and 2, access Xiph Comments in Ogg Vorbis Files and Ogg Flac Files and access APE tags in Musepack and MP3 files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:20:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:20:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121620.l1CGKrib006259@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 11:20 EST ------- I am passing the rest upstream. So I hope to get a new version from them soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:26:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121626.l1CGQGsN006798@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-12 11:26 EST ------- > Having stuff not in UTF-8 isn't a bug. It is upstream choice. Same > may be true or not for dos2unix, it depends on the precise situation. It will be not the case. unfortunately he port olso for win32 using old tools so dos2unix and UTF8 will not be merged. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:30:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:30:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226038] Merge Review: libpng In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121630.l1CGU35B007258@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libpng https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226038 tgl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From tgl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 11:29 EST ------- All these issues are addressed in libpng-1.2.16. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:35:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:35:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227061] Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121635.l1CGZXUP007912@bugzilla.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: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-12 11:35 EST ------- I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:39:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:39:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225247] Merge Review: anacron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121639.l1CGdbPq008318@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED AssignedTo|jspaleta at gmail.com |mmaslano at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:39:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:39:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218020] Review Request: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121639.l1CGdgWn008336@bugzilla.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: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218020 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-12 11:39 EST ------- I've finally gotten to fixing the latest little bits of the package. See postgrey-1.27-4.fc6 here : http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/postgrey/ * Mon Feb 12 2007 Matthias Saou 1.27-4 - Silence %%setup. - Fix init script mode in the srpm. - Remove explicit perl(IO::Multiplex) requirement, not needed on FC6 (but probably still on RHEL4). - Add a comment line to the empty local whitelist file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:41:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:41:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121641.l1CGfgwB008513@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-12 11:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > SMP make flags in a noarch build are superfluous. Not necessarily, they don't have anything to do with archs per se. Granted, noarch packages benefit from parallel builds much less often than eg. ones that invoke a C compiler. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:42:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:42:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226351] Merge Review: qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121642.l1CGgWd4008653@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226351 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(than at redhat.com), |fedora-review+ |fedora-review- | ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-12 11:42 EST ------- Considering there are no MUST blockers, I'll mark qt as approved. We can address the SHOULD items post-merge-review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:42:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:42:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225715] Merge Review: echo-icon-theme In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121642.l1CGgWCP008646@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: echo-icon-theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225715 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |davidz at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-12 11:42 EST ------- Changes to spec look good. +1 APPROVE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:45:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:45:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225812] Merge Review: gnome-audio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121645.l1CGjxG5009001@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-audio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225812 bdpepple at ameritech.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bdpepple at ameritech.net |alexl at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple at ameritech.net 2007-02-12 11:45 EST ------- Changes to spec look good. +1 APPROVE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:48:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:48:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225256] Merge Review: arts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121648.l1CGmjLG009251@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: arts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225256 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |than at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-12 11:48 EST ------- Simple, clean, looks good. My only suggestion would be to omit the hard-coded: Requires: audiofile APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:53:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121653.l1CGrGEr009723@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-12 11:53 EST ------- SRPMS reloaded. was corrupt on ftp, please update. ~cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:54:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:54:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226338] Merge Review: PyQt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121654.l1CGsldh010015@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: PyQt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226338 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |than at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-12 11:54 EST ------- PyQt looks good, simple and clean, APPROVED. A few small SHOULD items to consider post-merge: * -BuildRequires: libGL-devel libGLU-devel qt-devel Req's these now. * +BuildRequires: qscintilla-devel to build/include qscintilla extention (provided now by Extras' PyQt-qscintilla) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 16:56:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:56:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228296] Review Request: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121656.l1CGu7qd010211@bugzilla.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: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228296 ville.skytta at iki.fi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ville.skytta at iki.fi OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-12 11:56 EST ------- - While the license of pylirc in the sources and PKG-INFO is said to be LGPL, it links with liblirc_client which is unconditionally GPL AFAICT -> the license of this package when distributed should be GPL too. LGPL allows that (see its chapter 3 - references to LGPL should be replaced by GPL when doing that). - Add "Provides: pylirc = %{version}-%{release}" for upstream compatibility and because "python-lirc" is substantially different from "pylirc"? - Include PKG-INFO in %doc? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:00:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:00:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121700.l1CH03mY010579@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 12:00 EST ------- Ah.. I have forgotton to comment: * Use "rm -rf " for removing directories. ---------------------------------------------- + mv /var/tmp/gdal-1.4.0-root/usr/lib/Geo /var/tmp/gdal-1.4.0-root/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/ + rm /var/tmp/gdal-1.4.0-root/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/Geo/GDAL rm: cannot remove `/var/tmp/gdal-1.4.0-root/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/Geo/GDAL': Is a directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.36948 (%install) ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- %clean rm -r $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ----------------------------------------------- Also please use "rm -rf". For me "rm -r" causes hang up (I don't know the reason). And.. again to comment 30, why -python subpackage has the following? ----------------------------------------------- Requires: proj-devel ogdi-devel geos-devel netcdf-devel hdf5-devel Requires: jasper-devel cfitsio-devel hdf-devel libdap-devel librx-devel ----------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:01:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:01:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121701.l1CH1g62010741@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review-, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(than at redhat.com) | ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-12 12:01 EST ------- Since kdelibs review includes no MUST blockers, I'll mark this APPROVED. We can address the SHOULD items post-merge. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:11:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:11:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228296] Review Request: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121711.l1CHBjis011465@bugzilla.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: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228296 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-12 12:11 EST ------- Thanks for this quick and valuable feedback :-) lirc-0.0.5-2.fc6 available : * Thu Feb 8 2007 Matthias Saou 0.0.5-2 - Change License from GPL to LGPL as our package links with lirc which is GPL. - Add pylirc (original name) virtual provides. - Include the API doc and both examples from the website. Oh, I added PKG-INFO to the %doc (is it really useful?), but also took the time to add the only doc really available : the few pages on the website. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:14:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:14:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121714.l1CHEnZv011679@bugzilla.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: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 klee at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |klee at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From klee at redhat.com 2007-02-12 12:14 EST ------- Review Comments * incorrect buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * changelog should be in one of these formats: (without epoch) * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Summary tag should not end in a period * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:16:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:16:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121716.l1CHG00X011801@bugzilla.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: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 ------- Additional Comments From klee at redhat.com 2007-02-12 12:15 EST ------- Package won't build, here's first error. [javac] 55. ERROR in /notnfs/klee/RPMBUILDS/BUILD/javassist-3.1/src/main/jav assist/util/HotSwapper.java [javac] (at line 18) [javac] import com.sun.jdi.*; [javac] ^^^^^^^^^^^ [javac] The import com.sun.jdi cannot be resolved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:17:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121717.l1CHHPvh011861@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-12 12:17 EST ------- Thanks for you help. But still there's one trouble now, I stucked when excute ./common/cvs-import.sh, it failed like this : Checking out the modules file... Module 'fuse-convmvfs' already exists... Checking out module: 'fuse-convmvfs' Unpacking source package: fuse-convmvfs-0.2.3-2.fc6.src.rpm... L fuse-convmvfs-0.2.3.tar.gz A fuse-convmvfs.spec Checking : fuse-convmvfs-0.2.3.tar.gz on https://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/repo/extras/upload.cgi... This file (40ca966feb47d2fcdaedb682655fd3e3 fuse-convmvfs-0.2.3.tar.gz) is already uploaded Source upload succeeded. Don't forget to commit the new ./sources file A sources cvs update: use `cvs add' to create an entry for .cvsignore ? import.log ? devel/.cvsignore cvs commit... cvs commit: Pre-commit check failed cvs [commit aborted]: correct above errors first! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:22:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:22:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121722.l1CHMmRf012226@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 12:22 EST ------- Well, the process is in way of changing and lots of people are actually in trouble. I confirmed that you wrote SyncNeeded, so all you can do for now is just to wait... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:22:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:22:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121722.l1CHMuXc012248@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-12 12:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > In some rare case there it isn't possible to have an url, when > there was an upstream project, but it has disappeared and one > happens to find a tarball somewhere. In those cases, I generally consider that we have become upstream per: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages?highlight=%28upstream%29%7C%28orphan%29#head-f7fccda587fb4a4401f9f232639659d0c5832481 As such it will fall under the "We're upstream and source rpm is canonical" when it is created. Or we could use Debian or some other distro as the upstream and have a comment that explains how to extract the source tarball from their package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:24:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:24:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227046] Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121724.l1CHOft3012443@bugzilla.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: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227046 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |fitzsim at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-12 12:24 EST ------- review below: elements with X need to be dealt with MUST: X specfile should be %{name}.spec * rename spec file to classpathx-jaxp.spec X License should be just GPL X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output W: classpathx-jaxp non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: classpathx-jaxp invalid-license GPL with library exception E: classpathx-jaxp unknown-key GPG#c431416d W: classpathx-jaxp unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_parser_impl E: classpathx-jaxp configure-without-libdir-spec W: classpathx-jaxp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 76 X Vendor tag should not be used X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 - Build fails because gnu.xml.aelfred2 not found - gnu.xml.aelfred2 needs to be a BuildRequires X - Summary(fr) should not be included - this can be in localized version X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs - could not build as gnu.xml.aelfred2 is not a Fedora package X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs - could not do as build failed SHOULD: X package should build on i386 - not yet * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:25:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:25:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226338] Merge Review: PyQt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121725.l1CHPqXI012518@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: PyQt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226338 mr.ecik at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mr.ecik at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-12 12:25 EST ------- Source0 URL no longer exists, should be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:27:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:27:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227117] Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121727.l1CHRPuZ012723@bugzilla.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: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-12 12:27 EST ------- X MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint output: E: tagsoup summary-too-long A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish W: tagsoup non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: tagsoup mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 41) Error while reading /home/pcheung/tagsoup: error reading package header E: tagsoup summary-too-long A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish W: tagsoup non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: tagsoup-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec X MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Release: should be 1jpp.1%{?dist} BuildRoot: should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. X MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. LICENCE file missing in %doc X MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. not needed: Vendor: JPackage Project Distribution: JPackage When adding gcj bits, remove BuildArch: noarch The license is a disjunction of the Academic Free License, version 3.0, and the GNU General Public License, version 2.0 lines are > 80 characters: line 37, 76 URL doesn't exist: http://mercury.ccil.org/~cowan/XML/tagsoup/ - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ( http://www.ioccc.org/). - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ( http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist. - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package. - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:29:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121729.l1CHT0ai012875@bugzilla.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: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 ------- Additional Comments From klee at redhat.com 2007-02-12 12:28 EST ------- After running rpmlint : W: javassist non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java E: javassist unknown-key GPG#c431416d -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:30:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:30:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227117] Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121730.l1CHUTPF013016@bugzilla.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: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:32:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:32:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225839] Merge Review: gnome-terminal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121732.l1CHWbpT013154@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-terminal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225839 reza at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|reza at farsiweb.info |besfahbo at redhat.com CC| |reza at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From reza at farsiweb.info 2007-02-12 12:32 EST ------- Output of src.rpm rpmlint: W: gnome-terminal mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 75, tab: line 92) Output of i386.rpm rpmlint: W: gnome-terminal non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnome-terminal.schemas (Respecting http://lists.debian.org/debian-gtk-gnome/2004/01/msg00020.html , We can ignore this warning.) RPM name is OK. spec file name is OK. License: GPL. [OK] Source gnome-terminal-2.17.90.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream. Builds fine in mock for i386. Comparing package Requires and BuildRequires with configure.in : configure.in spec ----------------------------- ----------------------------- GTK_REQUIRED=2.10.0 %define gtk2_version 2.6.0 VTE_REQUIRED=0.13.4 %define vte_version 0.12.0-2 GNOMEVFS_REQUIRED=2.4 ? libglade-2.0 ? libgnomeui-2.0 %define libgnomeui_version 2.3.0 pangoxft >= 1.1.1 %define pango_version 1.8.0 GConf2 >= 2.14 is repeated three times, could be defined as a macro. There is no URL of source tarball. There are 3 patches and one .po file in cvs but just one is applied. They should be removed. Configure flags are not documented. (--with-widget=vte --disable-scrollkeeper) Parallel make flag is not used. %makeinstall is used instead of 'make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}'. [BLOCKER] "gnome" is used as vendor for desktop-file-install. However that was "gnome" for FC4 SRPM too, and vendor_id should be constant for the life of a package. So it's ok. 'rm -r $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/var/scrollkeeper' has not any comment/document. (Does it have effect on %find_lang ?) Files list: %{_datadir}/gnome/help/gnome-terminal *** No dependency to owner of %{_datadir}/gnome/help/ nor %{_datadir}/gnome/ [BLOCKER] %{_sysconfdir}/gconf/schemas/gnome-terminal.schemas *** No dependency to owner of %{_sysconfdir}/gconf/schemas/ nor %{_sysconfdir}/gconf/ [BLOCKER] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:33:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:33:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121733.l1CHXktu013241@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 12:33 EST ------- X suggests the subsection needs attention + is a positive comment . is a specific comment about a problem X * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name + Tarball matches upstream - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency + Looks OK to me - specfile should be %{name}.spec + spec file matches %{name} - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) + Correct. - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease . The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. 0:1.0-0.b2.1jpp should comply to Fedora + JPackage exception guidelines: 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1%{?dist} - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name + Does not apply. * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware + ASL is acceptable license, none of the other fields apply * license field matches the actual license. + ASL 1.1 * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common + Apache Software License is fine * specfile name matches %{name} + Correct. * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah + MD5 sum matches * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. + Looks OK. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) This needs to be fixed X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) . Refer to the naming comment earlier * license text included in package and marked with %doc + Correct. * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) + Seems OK. * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) + Seems OK. X * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there W: ant-contrib non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". + This can be ignored since the group seems irrelevant W: ant-contrib class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/ant-contrib-1.0.jar The META-INF/MANIFEST file in the jar contains a hardcoded Class-Path. These entries do not work with older Java versions and even if they do work, they are inflexible and usually cause nasty surprises. W: ant-contrib-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm . Please apply the following: https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html W: ant-contrib-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". W: ant-contrib-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/ant-contrib-1.0/tasks/foreach.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. . Use sed to remove the offending characters in the %prep W: ant-contrib-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/ant-contrib-1.0/tasks/for.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: ant-contrib non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". W: ant-contrib mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 50) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. + Seems OK. * Packager tag should not be used + Seems OK. X * Vendor and disribution tag should not be used + Remove the above 2 tags * use License and not Copyright + Correct. * Summary tag should not end in a period + Correct. * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) + N/A X specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement . Seems OK overall, please try and incorporate the suggestions for javadoc handling mentioned earlier so the %post* sections for it can be removed. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here + Local build on minimal machine works, will check on mock again when resubmitted - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package + Correct * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) + Correct X make sure lines are <= 80 characters . The gcj_support line is massive (>80 chars) , try and reformat if possible * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS + Correct * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines + Correct * package should probably not be relocatable + It is not relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content X * package should own all directories and files + Since package is installing to %{_javadir} should add Requires(pre), Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils but if the javadoc handling is fixed then a simple requires is good enough * there should be no %files duplicates + Correct. * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present + Correct. * %clean should be present + Correct. * %doc files should not affect runtime + Seems OK. * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www + Not a web app X * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs . Add requires on java and jpackage-utils (Requires(x) if appropriate, see above) X * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . Above rpmlint output is for binary + srpm SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc + Correct. * package should build on i386 + Builds locally. * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:35:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:35:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121735.l1CHZGwp013303@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-12 12:35 EST ------- In reply to comment #12: I understand your strong feelings in this, and share many of them, however... >Also, you should be aware that FE-policy so far had been, headers can go to >"/usr/include, if a package installs very few headers which are almost >guaranteed never to conflict". Where is this guideline listed? I know of no such rule... Perhaps you should get the package guidelines to include such a blocker rule? Thomas: Can you mail upstream and ask if they will change this... for now, we can just move forward with the include files in /usr/include, and then hopefully they will update to use a /usr/include/ soon. If it looks like they will make this change soon, you can change it in your package and then drop the change when upstream moves to it? I'll leave this in REVIEW for a few days to let you talk to upstream and see if they will do this change, and when... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:37:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121737.l1CHb6su013466@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:38:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:38:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227041] Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121738.l1CHc3kW013576@bugzilla.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: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227041 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mwringe at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-12 12:38 EST ------- rpmlint bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp.src.rpm: W: bea-stax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: bea-stax invalid-license Apache Software License 2 W: bea-stax mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51) rpmlint rpms: W: bea-stax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: bea-stax invalid-license Apache Software License 2 W: bea-stax no-documentation W: bea-stax-api summary-ended-with-dot The StAX API. W: bea-stax-api non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: bea-stax-api invalid-license Apache Software License 2 W: bea-stax-api no-documentation W: bea-stax-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: bea-stax-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License 2 W: bea-stax-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: bea-stax-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease X - release tag does not follow guidelines X - all jpp packages need to have %{?dist} added at the end - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common X not a proper license tag, remove the '2' * specfile name matches %{name} * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) X source md5sums match, but project is no longer on project website should probably change source link to the following, where the package still exists http://dist.codehaus.org/stax/distributions/stax-src-1.2.0_rc1-dev.zip - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot X buildroot does not follow fedora guidelines - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) X dist not used, but needs to be added since jpp package * license text included in package and marked with %doc X license test not included in package * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output X rplint gives many warnings, see above - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used X this should be removed * Vendor tag should not be used X this should be removed * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) * specfile is legible X too many commented lines * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper X missing build requires. This package is at very least missing ant * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs - see above errors SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc X license doc is not installed * package should build on i386 - build on jpp so should still be buildable * package should build in mock - can't be built in mock, missing buildrequires. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:39:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:39:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227126] Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121739.l1CHdJA4013668@bugzilla.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: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:40:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:40:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121740.l1CHefA2013754@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-12 12:40 EST ------- Review will be needed for tcl8.4. Source tk is needed for generating html. BuildRequires are needed (sed is in configure). What do you mean by redundant version? Links for backward compatibily stay in tcl 8.4. I'll fix it for new version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:46:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:46:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215659] Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121746.l1CHkwTY014084@bugzilla.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: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215659 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-12 12:46 EST ------- Jochen, ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:51:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:51:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226427] Merge Review: specspo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121751.l1CHpWV2014411@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: specspo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226427 roozbeh at farsiweb.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |roozbeh at farsiweb.info Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:53:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:53:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121753.l1CHre3P014573@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-12 12:53 EST ------- Right, but with a 34 KB noarch package and no costly computations during %build, there is no gain to expect on a MP system. The risk is greater than the potential benefit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:58:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:58:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121758.l1CHwL3w015057@bugzilla.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: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jkeating at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com -- 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 Mon Feb 12 17:59:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:59:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121759.l1CHxMss015235@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-12 12:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > In reply to comment #12: > >Also, you should be aware that FE-policy so far had been, headers can go to > >"/usr/include, if a package installs very few headers which are almost > >guaranteed never to conflict". > > Where is this guideline listed? I know of no such rule... It's not listed anywhere. It's simply common sense and established "good" practice by many FE packagers. > Perhaps you should get the package guidelines to include such a blocker rule? Seems as if we need regulations for anything Please note, that I only commented and expressed my opinion, I did not block this package review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 17:59:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:59:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215659] Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121759.l1CHxZKR015252@bugzilla.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: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215659 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |matthias at rpmforge.net ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-12 12:59 EST ------- Just looked at the last spec file and it looks good to me, apart from the comments that seems to be leftover from a template, thus could be removed. Regarding Elisa, it requires a more recent version of PythonDAAP now. For the package I had made, I had created this patch to bring 0.4 up to what's in SVN : http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/PythonDaap-0.4-r3266.patch Note that it also contains the LICENSE file you've already added too ;-) If Jochen doesn't finish reviewing this package, I wouldn't mind doing it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:22:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:22:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121822.l1CIMm2r016996@bugzilla.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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-12 13:22 EST ------- ============================== RPMLINT OUTPUT FOR SOURCE RPM: ============================== W: dom2-core-tests non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: dom2-core-tests invalid-license W3C Software License W: dom2-core-tests rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT W: dom2-core-tests mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 42) W: dom2-core-tests class-path-in-manifest /dom2-core-tests-20040405.jar =============================== RPMLINT OUTPUT FOR BINARY RPMS: =============================== dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp.noarch.rpm: ------------------------------------------------- W: dom2-core-tests non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: dom2-core-tests invalid license W3C Software license W: dom2-core-tests no-documentation dom2-core-tests-javadoc-00,01-0.20040405-1jpp.noarch.rpm: --------------------------------------------------------- W: dom2-core-tests-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: dom2-core-tests-javadoc invalid-license W3C Software License W: dom2-core-tests-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm w: dom2-core-tests-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm - Fix %Release tag. - Remove %Vendor and &Distribution. - Add "-%(%{__id_u} -n)" to the end of %BuildRoot. - In the future, when adding gcj support, remove %BuildArch. - Change the changelog entry format. Ralph's email should read "". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:26:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:26:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227092] Review Request: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121826.l1CIQNVt017345@bugzilla.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: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227092 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:26:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:26:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121826.l1CIQHPo017322@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From sander at hoentjen.eu 2007-02-12 13:26 EST ------- Is there a chance you will remove the epoch? Rawhide upgrade path breakage seems to be viewed as the lesser evil compared to introducing an epoch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:26:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:26:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218020] Review Request: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121826.l1CIQK4l017332@bugzilla.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: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218020 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-12 13:26 EST ------- Good deal Matthias. Thanks for making this package. I've set the fedora-review flag. I'm not sure yet on the new process whether I should also set fedora-cvs or if you should. So I've left it alone for now. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:33:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:33:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215659] Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121833.l1CIXMZu018011@bugzilla.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: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215659 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-12 13:33 EST ------- I just asked the author if he'd be willing to make a new release ASAP in order to not have to package an svn snapshot... and he did! So 0.5 is now available, and will probably even include the license file :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:34:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:34:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195647] Review Request: redland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121834.l1CIYdNx018112@bugzilla.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: redland https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195647 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-12 13:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14): >> Where is this guideline listed? I know of no such rule... >It's not listed anywhere. It's simply common sense and established "good" >practice by many FE packagers. Right. >> Perhaps you should get the package guidelines to include such a blocker rule? > Seems as if we need regulations for anything For things that should block inclusion of a package, I think so... >Please note, that I only commented and expressed my opinion, I did not block >this package review. Sure, and like I said, I share much of your opinion on this... but I don't think it's a blocking issue for the package. Lets see what Thomas can find out from upstream. Hopefully they will quickly do the right thing and we will all be happy. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:41:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121841.l1CIfx3e018819@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:42:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:42:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227719] Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121842.l1CIg1Os018836@bugzilla.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: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227719 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:42:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:42:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121842.l1CIgLIi018895@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:49:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:49:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121849.l1CInuGg019557@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-12 13:49 EST ------- BuildRequire: Ant is needed as well -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:49:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:49:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121849.l1CInsYm019545@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:59:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:59:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225367] Review Request: perl-Path-Class - Cross-platform path specification manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121859.l1CIxJst020833@bugzilla.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-Path-Class - Cross-platform path specification manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225367 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:59:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:59:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225364] Review Request: perl-App-CLI - Dispatcher module for command line interface programs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121859.l1CIxEek020818@bugzilla.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-App-CLI - Dispatcher module for command line interface programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225364 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:59:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:59:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225365] Review Request: perl-File-Next - File-finding iterator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121859.l1CIxC7L020794@bugzilla.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-Next - File-finding iterator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225365 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 18:59:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:59:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225366] Review Request: perl-Module-Depends - Identify the dependencies of a distribution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121859.l1CIxgDZ020879@bugzilla.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-Depends - Identify the dependencies of a distribution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225366 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:00:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:00:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227126] Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121900.l1CJ0jpr021012@bugzilla.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: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:00 EST ------- MUST: X specfile should be %{name}.spec X release should be of form: Xjpp.Y%{?dist} X change license to ASL X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - md5sum doesn't match for src rpm and upstream tar source commented in spec X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X license text included in package and marked with %doc - %doc not used X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style E: xpp2 unknown-key GPG#c431416d X Vendor tag should not be used X description has typo (developement) and doesn't end with period. X make sure lines are <= 80 characters X manual subpackage should be renamed doc X license is commented as being part of manual but is actually in main package - should just be moved outside comment X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-demo-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm W: xpp2-demo non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-demo invalid-license Apache Software License -style W: xpp2-demo no-documentation W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%postun rm [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-javadoc-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm W: xpp2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License -style W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-manual-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm W: xpp2-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-manual invalid-license Apache Software License -style W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%postun rm SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:04:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:04:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228212] Review Request: perl-Proc-Daemon - Run Perl program as a daemon process In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121904.l1CJ4WYA021315@bugzilla.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-Proc-Daemon - Run Perl program as a daemon process https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228212 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:04:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:04:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121904.l1CJ4dYM021340@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:09:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218020] Review Request: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121909.l1CJ9fvO021768@bugzilla.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: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218020 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:10:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:10:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225847] Merge Review: gnupg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121910.l1CJACH1021817@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnupg https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225847 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(nalin at redhat.com) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:12:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:12:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121912.l1CJCUHA021966@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From ianburrell at gmail.com 2007-02-12 14:12 EST ------- I left out the %check block because the tests fail when run without a terminal. This is a bug in the tests in that they assume that they are run from a terminal. The tests pass when run normaly. I entered a bug upstream to fix the problem. http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=24670 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:13:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:13:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] Review Request: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121913.l1CJDL9Y022030@bugzilla.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: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:13 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147926) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147926&action=view) spec file already renamed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:14:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:14:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] Review Request: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121914.l1CJEfn2022140@bugzilla.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: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:14 EST ------- SRPM URL http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/gnu-trove-1.0.2-5jpp.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:18:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:18:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215659] Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121918.l1CJIJaL022514@bugzilla.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: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215659 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-12 14:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > I just asked the author if he'd be willing to make a new release ASAP in order > to not have to package an svn snapshot... and he did! So 0.5 is now available, Yes, I saw that... > and will probably even include the license file :-) Unfortunately, he didn't. Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/python-daap-0.5-1.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/python-daap-0.5-1.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:19:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:19:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121919.l1CJJ4Ca022589@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:19 EST ------- Humm, Bugzilla loses the comment when one also adds an attachment. Here is the last SRPM with AOT: http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.7jpp.src.rpm Will try and get one without the duplicate requires and perhaps without the script subpackage if possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:20:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:20:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121920.l1CJK0qW022701@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From ianburrell at gmail.com 2007-02-12 14:19 EST ------- >> Requires: perl(File::Next) >= 0.38 > That one is automatically set by rpmbuild already, isn't it? I removed the manual one. >> %setup -q -n ack-%{version} > -n %{name}-%{version} is automatic already That was an artifact of renaming the package. Spec URL: http://znark.com/fedora/ack.spec SRPM URL: http://znark.com/fedora/ack-1.56-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:22:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:22:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] Review Request: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121922.l1CJMPnQ022996@bugzilla.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: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:23:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:23:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] Review Request: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121923.l1CJNFfT023159@bugzilla.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: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:24:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:24:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215659] Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121924.l1CJOhqo023383@bugzilla.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: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215659 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-12 14:24 EST ------- Too bad for the license, then... Anyway, two more quickies : - The consensus would seem to be to remove the leading "A " from the summary - The "cp" for SOURCE1 is wrong, as a bad umask can lead to wrong file modes, which is known to have happened in the build system, use "install -m 0644" instead The rest looks quite alright to me. Jochen : Please review ASAP or let me know if you want me to pick this one up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:27:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:27:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218018] Review Request: spampd - Transparent SMTP/LMTP proxy filter using spamassassin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121927.l1CJRAjn023658@bugzilla.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: spampd - Transparent SMTP/LMTP proxy filter using spamassassin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218018 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |2.30-3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:27:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121927.l1CJRhNK023757@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:27 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147929) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147929&action=view) Spec file with double Requires/missing BR fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:28:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:28:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121928.l1CJS2FF023809@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 fnasser at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147907|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:27 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147929) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147929&action=view) Spec file with double Requires/missing BR fixed ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:27 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147930) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147930&action=view) Spec file with double Requires/missing BR fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:28:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:28:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218020] Review Request: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121928.l1CJSTAP023896@bugzilla.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: postgrey - Postfix Greylisting Policy Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218020 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |1.27-4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:29:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:29:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121929.l1CJT6TU024003@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 fnasser at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147929|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:29 EST ------- (From update of attachment 147929) duplicate -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:30:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:30:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121930.l1CJUC28024210@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:30 EST ------- http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.8jpp.src.rpm has the double Requires/missing BR fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:36:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:36:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215659] Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121936.l1CJa5r3024904@bugzilla.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: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215659 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-12 14:36 EST ------- Spec URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/python-daap-0.5-2.fc6.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.ocjtech.us/misc/fedora/6/SRPMS/python-daap-0.5-2.fc6.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Feb 12 2007 Jeffrey C. Ollie - 0.5-2 - Drop "A " from the summary - Use "install -m 0644" instead of "cp". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:38:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:38:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121938.l1CJcDnN025172@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:38 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) locations) * license text included in package and marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output W: objectweb-anttask non-standard-group Development/Java W: objectweb-anttask unversioned-explicit-provides owanttask W: objectweb-anttask rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT W: objectweb-anttask mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 37) * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Packager tag should not be used X Vendor tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - Requires jpackage-utils in post and postun javadoc - Get rid of Vendor and Distribution - Fix Release tag - Fix Source0: http://download.fr2.forge.objectweb.org/monolog/ow_util_ant_tasks_1.3.2.zip - When adding the gcj bits, BuildArch: noarch should be removed * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here i don't have mock setup. * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) X make sure lines are <= 80 characters line 80 is longer than 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs [pcheung at tonka jpp]$ rpm -qpl --provides ~/topdir/RPMS/noarch/tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp.noarch.rpm tagsoup = 0:1.0.1-1jpp /usr/share/doc/tagsoup-1.0.1 /usr/share/doc/tagsoup-1.0.1/CHANGES /usr/share/doc/tagsoup-1.0.1/README /usr/share/java/tagsoup-1.0.1.jar /usr/share/java/tagsoup.jar [pcheung at tonka jpp]$ rpm -qpl --requires ~/topdir/RPMS/noarch/tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp.noarch.rpm jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 /usr/share/doc/tagsoup-1.0.1 /usr/share/doc/tagsoup-1.0.1/CHANGES /usr/share/doc/tagsoup-1.0.1/README /usr/share/java/tagsoup-1.0.1.jar /usr/share/java/tagsoup.jar [pcheung at tonka jpp]$ rpm -qpl --provides ~/topdir/RPMS/noarch/tagsoup-javadoc-1.0.1-1jpp.noarch.rpm tagsoup-javadoc = 0:1.0.1-1jpp /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1 /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/allclasses-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/allclasses-noframe.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/constant-values.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/deprecated-list.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/help-doc.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/index-all.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/index.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/AttributesImpl.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/AutoDetector.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/CommandLine.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/Element.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/ElementType.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/PYXScanner.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/PYXWriter.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/Parser.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/ScanHandler.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/Scanner.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/Schema.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/XMLWriter.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/AttributesImpl.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/AutoDetector.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/CommandLine.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/Element.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/ElementType.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/PYXScanner.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/PYXWriter.html/usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/Parser.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/ScanHandler.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/Scanner.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/Schema.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/XMLWriter.html/usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/package-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/package-summary.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/package-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/package-use.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/overview-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/package-list /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/resources /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/resources/inherit.gif /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/stylesheet.css [pcheung at tonka jpp]$ rpm -qpl --requires ~/topdir/RPMS/noarch/tagsoup-javadoc-1.0.1-1jpp.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1 /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/allclasses-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/allclasses-noframe.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/constant-values.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/deprecated-list.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/help-doc.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/index-all.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/index.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/AttributesImpl.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/AutoDetector.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/CommandLine.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/Element.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/ElementType.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/PYXScanner.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/PYXWriter.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/Parser.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/ScanHandler.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/Scanner.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/Schema.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/XMLWriter.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/AttributesImpl.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/AutoDetector.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/CommandLine.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/Element.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/ElementType.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/PYXScanner.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/PYXWriter.html/usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/Parser.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/ScanHandler.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/Scanner.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/Schema.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/class-use/XMLWriter.html/usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/package-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/package-summary.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/package-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/org/ccil/cowan/tagsoup/package-use.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/overview-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/package-list /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/resources /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/resources/inherit.gif /usr/share/javadoc/tagsoup-1.0.1/stylesheet.css * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs W: objectweb-anttask non-standard-group Development/Java W: objectweb-anttask incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.3.2-2jpp 0:1.3.2-1jpp W: objectweb-anttask no-documentation W: objectweb-anttask-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: objectweb-anttask-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: objectweb-anttask-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:39:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:39:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225710] Merge Review: dtach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121939.l1CJd3Lq025311@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dtach https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225710 ------- Additional Comments From lhh at redhat.com 2007-02-12 14:38 EST ------- Patch applied and built; should be available soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:41:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:41:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227070] Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121941.l1CJfe1a025770@bugzilla.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: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227070 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 19:51:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:51:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702121951.l1CJpDNc026837@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-12 14:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Review will be needed for tcl8.4. Ok, then I'll start a full review based on the current state of CVS. > Source tk is needed for generating html. I checked upstream, and they publish the html pages: http://superb-east.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/tcl/tcl8.4.13-html.tar.gz This will let you separate out the -html subpackage into a standalone package and drop the included tk source tarball. The -html subpackage can also be made "BuildArch: noarch" since it contains only html and a few images. > BuildRequires are needed (sed is in configure). Separating the html documentation into a separate package removes the need for 'BuildRequires: man'. sed is in the minimal build environment, and is explicitly disallowed by the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-4cadce5e79d38a63cad3941de1dadc9d25d67d30 > What do you mean by redundant version? In the main package you specify: URL: http://tcl.sourceforge.net/ And again in the -devel (and other) subpackage, you specify the url tag again. If you leave off the URL: tag in the -devel subpackage, then it will inherit the value from the main package. The same is true for the Version: tag; it's not necessary to specify it again in the subpackage. > Links for backward compatibily stay in tcl 8.4. I'll fix it for new version. Ok, but it would still be nice to address the second component of bug #227200, adding %{_libdir}/tcl%{majorver} to auto_path. This would let us proceed with updating the extensions in preparation for bug #226893. But this is really an orthogonal issue to the merge review, so I won't block the review just for this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 20:01:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] Review Request: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122001.l1CK1RbG027877@bugzilla.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: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-12 15:01 EST ------- MUST: X remove %define short-name and simply use trove in %Name X release should be of form: Xjpp.Y%{?dist} X no explanation of how source0 generated or where fetched from X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output [jjohnstn at vermillion Desktop]$ rpmlint gnu-trove-1.0.2-5jpp.src.rpm W: gnu-trove non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java E: gnu-trove unknown-key GPG#c431416d W: gnu-trove unversioned-explicit-provides gnu.trove W: gnu-trove unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnu.trove W: gnu-trove unversioned-explicit-provides gnu.trove-javadoc W: gnu-trove unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnu.trove-javadoc W: gnu-trove mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 52) X Vendor tag should not be used X make sure lines are <= 80 characters * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint gnu-trove-1.0.2-5jpp.noarch.rpm W: gnu-trove non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint gnu-trove-javadoc-1.0.2-5jpp.noarch.rpm W: gnu-trove-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: gnu-trove-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: gnu-trove-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 20:01:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:01:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227092] Review Request: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122001.l1CK1x5P027969@bugzilla.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: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227092 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-12 15:01 EST ------- ============================== RPMLINT output for source RPM: ============================== W: piccolo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: piccolo strange-permission piccolo-1.04-src.zip 0600 W: piccolo setup-not-quiet =============================== RPMLINT output for binary RPMs: =============================== piccolo-1.04-2jpp.noarch.rpm: ----------------------------- W: piccolo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: piccolo wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/piccolo-1.04/LICENSE.txt piccolo-javadoc-1.04-2jpp.noarch.rpm: ------------------------------------- W: piccolo-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: piccolo-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: piccolo-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm - Change %License to Apache Software License. - Fix %Release tag. - Change %BuildRoot tag to "%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)". - Remove %Vendor tag. - Remove %Distribution tag. - In the future, when gcj support added, remove %BuildArch tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 20:08:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:08:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122008.l1CK8ZoA028643@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 20:12:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:12:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227112] Review Request: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122012.l1CKC7vE028939@bugzilla.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: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227112 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-12 15:11 EST ------- relagxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name ?? * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? ?? - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware ?? - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm W: relaxngDatatype non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java E: relaxngDatatype unknown-key GPG#c431416d W: relaxngDatatype unversioned-explicit-obsoletes msv W: relaxngDatatype mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 50) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. OK * Packager tag should not be used NO * Vendor tag should not be used -- Vendor: JPackage Project -- OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package NO * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) -- %description %{summary} -- OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English NA * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? NO * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- ... %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -Dpm 644 %{name}.jar \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar ... -- OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs NO * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs -- $ rpmlint relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.noarch.rpm W: relaxngDatatype non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java E: relaxngDatatype obsolete-not-provided msv W: relaxngDatatype wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/relaxngDatatype-1.0/copying.txt -- SHOULD: OK * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 20:18:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:18:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226338] Merge Review: PyQt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122018.l1CKIOdH029659@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: PyQt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226338 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 20:27:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:27:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122027.l1CKRBqH030996@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |fnasser at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-12 15:26 EST ------- RPMLint Issues: rpmlint xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp.src.rpm W: xpp3 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML E: xpp3 tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: xpp3 invalid-license Apache Software License -style E: xpp3 non-utf8-spec-file xpp3.spec rpmlint xpp3-* W: xpp3 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML E: xpp3 tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: xpp3 invalid-license Apache Software License -style W: xpp3-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation E: xpp3-javadoc tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: xpp3-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License -style W: xpp3-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: xpp3-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm W: xpp3-minimal non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML E: xpp3-minimal tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: xpp3-minimal invalid-license Apache Software License -style W: xpp3-minimal no-documentation MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) X the "o" in the release looks to come from a release, as such it should be part of the version (see the naming guidelines). Since this is jpp package, it should also include %{?dist} at the end of the release. It also needs to contain the fedora release. - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware * license field matches the actual license. X this package is actually a BSD style license * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common * specfile name matches %{name} * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot X incorrect buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) X dist needs to be added since jpp * license text included in package and marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there X Many issues listed at top * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used * Vendor tag should not be used X Vendor and distribution tag should be removed * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement X javadoc linking needs to be changed to the remove rm/ln from the post and posun javadoc sections * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper X will check on mock when other issues are resolved - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * Requires are proper X This package should at least require java * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs X Many issues listed at top SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock X will check on mock when current issues are resolved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 20:29:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:29:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227041] Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122029.l1CKT34k031213@bugzilla.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: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227041 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 20:58:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:58:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227046] Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122058.l1CKwj66001709@bugzilla.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: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227046 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-12 15:58 EST ------- $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/SRPMS/classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1.src.rpm W: classpathx-jaxp unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_parser_impl OK because this is a virtual Provides in all packages that provide it. $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/classpathx-jaxp-scripts-1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1.noarch.rpm W: classpathx-jaxp-scripts no-documentation OK because this is a sub-package and the docs are in the base package. $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1.noarch.rpm gnujaxp = 1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1 jaxp_parser_impl classpathx-jaxp = 1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1.noarch.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh /usr/sbin/update-alternatives rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 xml-commons-apis $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/classpathx-jaxp-javadoc-1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1.noarch.rpm gnujaxp-javadoc = 1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1 classpathx-jaxp-javadoc = 1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/classpathx-jaxp-javadoc-1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/classpathx-jaxp-scripts-1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1.noarch.rpm gnujaxp-scripts = 1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1 classpathx-jaxp-scripts = 1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/classpathx-jaxp-scripts-1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1.noarch.rpm classpathx-jaxp = 1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1 jpackage-utils >= 0:1.5 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 I fixed the other small problems you pointed out and confirmed that the package builds on i386 and in mock. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:00:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:00:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227046] Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122100.l1CL02fn001761@bugzilla.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: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227046 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:18:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:18:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122118.l1CLIjpx004027@bugzilla.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: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:18 EST ------- X suggests the subsection needs attention + is a positive comment . is a specific comment about a problem MUST: X * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name + OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency + OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec + OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) + OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease . 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name + OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? + OSI-approved X licence OSI approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware + None of these apply X * license field matches the actual license. + The license according http://www-306.ibm.com/software/globalization/icu/license.jsp is X License * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common + Yes but needs to be confirmed to be the correct license, see above. * specfile name matches %{name} + OK. * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) + OK. The patches use windows style CRLF, please use sed to fix. - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah + N/A * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. + OK. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) . Use the buildroot specified above X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) . Use the new naming convention mentioned above * license text included in package and marked with %doc + OK. * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) + N/A * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) + OK X rpmlint on .srpm and rpm gives no output W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/icu4j-3.4.5/license.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/icu4j-3.4.5/APIChangeReport.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/icu4j-3.4.5/readme.html This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: icu4j-eclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development Environments (IDE) The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". W: icu4j-eclipse no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. . There should probably be an EPL file in the eclipse subpackage that needs to be added W: icu4j-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". W: icu4j-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm + If you get rid of the script driven javadoc handling, you wont have to deal with this, see below W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". W: icu4j mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 55) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there + Groups can be ignored . Fix the end line encoding . Add EPL documentation to eclipse package * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. + OK * Packager tag should not be used + OK * Vendor/Distribution tag should not be used + OK * use License and not Copyright + OK * Summary tag should not end in a period + OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) + N/A * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement + OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 + ?Builds OK locally * BuildRequires are proper + Builds in mock - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package + OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) + OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters + Everything except the gc_support incantation seems OK, if possible reformat * specfile written in American English + OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary + OK, the javadoc subpackages are equivalent to this * - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files + None of the above apply * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? + N/A X use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} used interchangably * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps Some cp commands not using -p option, suggest adding them if possible * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines + N/A * package should probably not be relocatable + Not relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent + OK - in general, there should be no offensive content + To the best of my knowledge no ofensive content :) X package should own all directories and files . /usr/lib/eclipse should be owned by libswt3-gtk2 in the latest update to it, add a require for it . jpackage-utils is needed for the javadoc and base package since it needs /usr/share/java{,doc}. Please take a look at https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html and modify the javadoc handling appropriately. If you use the above javadoc handling then you can limit to Requires: jpackage-utils in both javadoc and main packages, o/w you need Requires(post) and Requires on jpackage-utils as well as Requires(post) on rm and ln in javadoc package and a requires on the main package for jpackage-utils * there should be no %files duplicates + OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present + OK * %clean should be present + OK * %doc files should not affect runtime + OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www + Not a web app X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs + Builds in mock fine . Requires need to be fixed, check "package should own all directories and files" SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc + OK * package should build on i386 + Builds in mock * package should build in mock + OK -- 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 Mon Feb 12 21:20:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:20:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225247] Merge Review: anacron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122120.l1CLKXuo004246@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: anacron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225247 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? | ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:20 EST ------- Unsetting fedora-cvs, as Core Merge Reviews are already in CVS, and will be part of the mass move when we are ready to merge the distro later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:20:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122120.l1CLKsXd004344@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? | ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:20 EST ------- Unsetting fedora-cvs, as Core Merge Reviews are already in CVS, and will be part of the mass move when we are ready to merge the distro later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:21:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:21:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226516] Merge Review: unzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122121.l1CLL8ZT004455@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: unzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226516 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? | ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:20 EST ------- Unsetting fedora-cvs, as Core Merge Reviews are already in CVS, and will be part of the mass move when we are ready to merge the distro later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:22:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:22:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122122.l1CLMUfZ004747@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO CC| |wtogami at redhat.com Flag| |needinfo?(j.w.r.degoede at hhs. | |nl) ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:22 EST ------- fedora-cvs is set, but I don't see the other required info like branch names. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:22:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:22:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227061] Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122122.l1CLMv6j004821@bugzilla.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: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:22 EST ------- Things marked with an X need to be fixed. MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X specfile name matches %{name} . the specfile needs to be isorelax.spec X verify source and patches . we need to add the following: # mkdir isorelax-release-20050331-src # cd isorelax-release-20050331-src # cvs -d:pserver:anonymous at iso-relax.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/iso-relax \ # export -r release-20050331 src lib # cvs -d:pserver:anonymous at iso-relax.cvs.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/iso-relax \ # co -r release-20050331 build.xml # cd .. # tar cjf isorelax-release-20050331-src.tar.bz2 isorelax-release-20050331-src X the description should be fixed to not be from the author's point of view X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - this won't hold up the review, though, as there's currently a discussion regarding buildroots going on X release tag . we need to fix the release tag to be of the form 0.Z..Xjpp.Y%{?dist} X license text included in package and marked with %doc . upstream does not include their license in CVS * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on isorelax srpm gives this output W: isorelax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java . can be ignored W: isorelax unversioned-explicit-obsoletes isorelax-bootstrap W: isorelax unversioned-explicit-provides isorelax-bootstrap . I think we should just remove those virtual obsoletes/provides as they've never been shipped in Fedora. W: isorelax setup-not-quiet . I think it's the cat. That should just be in a comment, I think. E: isorelax no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install . add rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to the beginning of %install W: isorelax mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 38) . the easiest way to fix this is to run with emacs and do M-x untabify * changelog is in acceptable format * Packager tag should not be used X Vendor tag should not be used . remove Vendor . remove Distribution * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ? BuildRequires are proper . I'm not sure about this one. I guess we should verify if one of the packages that BRs this builds okay. * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary * no static libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no need for a -devel sub-package? * macros used appropriately and consistently * no locale data * package is not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean is present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a webapp * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs * final provides and requires are sane: X rpmlint on the binary RPMs: . package doesn't build on i386 11. ERROR in /home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/isorelax-0.1/src/org/iso_relax/jaxp/ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory.java (at line 15) public class ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory extends DocumentBuilderFactory ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The type ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory must implement the inherited abstract method DocumentBuilderFactory.setFeature(String, boolean) ---------- 12. ERROR in /home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/isorelax-0.1/src/org/iso_relax/jaxp/ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory.java (at line 15) public class ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory extends DocumentBuilderFactory ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The type ValidatingDocumentBuilderFactory must implement the inherited abstract method DocumentBuilderFactory.getFeature(String) SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc . upstream does not do this X package should build on i386 . nope (see above) X package should build in mock . didn't try -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:23:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:23:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226538] Merge Review: wget In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122123.l1CLNFWN004863@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: wget https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226538 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:23:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:23:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122123.l1CLNRXD004901@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:24:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:24:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227070] Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122124.l1CLO3Mr005017@bugzilla.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: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227070 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:24 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) X license text included in package and marked with %doc COPYRIGHT missing from %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - this is OK : W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used * Vendor tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - Get rid of Vendor and Distribution tag - Source0 should be: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/jflex/jflex-1.3.5.tar.gz - Fix release 2jpp.1%{?dist} * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) X make sure lines are <= 80 characters line 89 is longer than 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs [pcheung at topcat ~]$ rpm -qpl --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/noarch/jflex-1.3.5-2jpp.noarch.rpm jflex = 0:1.3.5-2jpp /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5 /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/COPYRIGHT /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/faq.html /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/foot_motif.gif /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/jflex_anttask.html /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/logo.gif /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/manual.css /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/manual.html /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/manual.pdf /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/manual.ps.gz /usr/share/java/jflex-1.3.5.jar /usr/share/java/jflex.jar [pcheung at topcat ~]$ rpm -qpl --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/noarch/jflex-1.3.5-2jpp.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5 /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/COPYRIGHT /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/faq.html /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/foot_motif.gif /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/jflex_anttask.html /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/logo.gif /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/manual.css /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/manual.html /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/manual.pdf /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/manual.ps.gz /usr/share/java/jflex-1.3.5.jar /usr/share/java/jflex.jar [pcheung at topcat ~]$ rpm -qpl --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/noarch/jflex-javadoc-1.3.5-2jpp.noarch.rpm jflex-javadoc = 0:1.3.5-2jpp /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5 /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Action.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/CharClassException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/CharClassIntervall.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/CharClasses.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/CharSet.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/CharSetEnumerator.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/DFA.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/EOFActions.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Emitter.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/ErrorMessages.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/GeneratorException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/IntCharSet.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Intervall.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/LexParse.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/LexScan.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/LexicalStates.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/MacroException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Macros.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Main.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/NFA.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Out.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/RegExp.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/RegExp1.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/RegExp2.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/RegExps.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/ScannerException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/SemCheck.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Skeleton.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/StatePairList.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/StateSet.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/StateSetEnumerator.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/StdOutWriter.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Timer.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/package-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/package-summary.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/package-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/sym.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/allclasses-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/allclasses-noframe.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/constant-values.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/deprecated-list.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/help-doc.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/index-all.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/index.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/overview-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/package-list /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/packages.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/resources /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/resources/inherit.gif /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/serialized-form.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/stylesheet.css [pcheung at topcat ~]$ rpm -qpl --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/noarch/jflex-javadoc-1.3.5-2jpp.noarch.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5 /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Action.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/CharClassException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/CharClassIntervall.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/CharClasses.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/CharSet.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/CharSetEnumerator.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/DFA.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/EOFActions.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Emitter.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/ErrorMessages.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/GeneratorException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/IntCharSet.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Intervall.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/LexParse.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/LexScan.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/LexicalStates.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/MacroException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Macros.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Main.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/NFA.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Out.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/RegExp.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/RegExp1.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/RegExp2.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/RegExps.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/ScannerException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/SemCheck.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Skeleton.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/StatePairList.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/StateSet.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/StateSetEnumerator.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/StdOutWriter.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/Timer.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/package-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/package-summary.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/package-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/JFlex/sym.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/allclasses-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/allclasses-noframe.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/constant-values.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/deprecated-list.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/help-doc.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/index-all.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/index.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/overview-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/package-list /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/packages.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/resources /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/resources/inherit.gif /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/serialized-form.html /usr/share/javadoc/jflex-1.3.5/stylesheet.css * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jflex wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/COPYRIGHT W: jflex uncompressed-zip /usr/share/java/jflex-1.3.5.jar W: jflex-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: jflex-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jflex-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 built on i386 * package should build in mock i don't have mock set up yet -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:25:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:25:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122125.l1CLPZjj005207@bugzilla.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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |vivekl at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:25 EST ------- Taking up for initial review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:26:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:26:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227063] Review Request: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122126.l1CLQAbX005361@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227063 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:28:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:28:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227061] Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122128.l1CLSvM5005757@bugzilla.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: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:28 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147939) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147939&action=view) This should clear up the issues with the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:41:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:41:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227061] Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122141.l1CLfCV1006691@bugzilla.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: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:40 EST ------- Fixed spec and SRPM: > ? BuildRequires are proper > . I'm not sure about this one. I guess we should verify if one of the > packages that BRs this builds okay. I still think this should be done. > X rpmlint on the binary RPMs: > . package doesn't build on i386 Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:43:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:43:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122143.l1CLhjsv006928@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 klee at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |klee at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From klee at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:43 EST ------- Review comments: * incorrect buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * license text not included in package and marked with %doc * rpmlint on .srpm gives some output W: jrexx non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java E: jrexx unknown-key GPG#c431416d W: jrexx setup-not-quiet * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Vendor tag should not be used * some lines are > 80 characters * does not use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:45:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:45:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226298] Merge Review: pirut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122145.l1CLja2w007072@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pirut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226298 katzj at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|katzj at redhat.com |jima at beer.tclug.org Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From katzj at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > 1. Ha ha ha > No upstream site, no MD5SUM to authenticate against, no place to check > we have the latest version. We should probably do something about that. > :-) Someday maybe... right now, no one else has even expressed interest in using it, so it's not worth the overhead of having a site, etc. The authoritative source is the src.rpm > 2. The recommended BuildRoot is: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) jbowes fixed this up for 1.2.11 > 3. rpmlint says: [snip] > These are a bit concerning, but based on our discussion on IRC, I have > to agree that they're probably a necessary evil. All of these packages > provided, at one time or another, the same functionality that pirut > does. They're all long gone from Fedora, probably never to come back. > I'd suggest adding Provides for the Obsoleted packages, and perhaps > versioning the Obsoletes, but I honestly can't say what the long-term > side effects to that might be. Ergo, I imagine we need to just go with > what we've got. (Besides, it's already in Core.) Yeah, necessary evil of having legacy. The obsoletes are for the upgrade path only, not for people wanting to require a specific type of functionality. > 4. I'm a bit concerned about pirut's use of /etc/xdg/autostart/ -- it's > owned by gnome-session, but I'm not seeing any sort of dependency on > gnome-session. This might be a problem. jbowes fixed this up too > 5. Open bugs. Holy carp! 62 open bugs! I expected it was over 100 at this point ;-) Big triage to come hopefully the end of this week. Trying to get a few other things in shape prior to the feature freeze, though, so it remains to be seen. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:47:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:47:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222372] Review Request: tilda - a quake like drop down terminal for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122147.l1CLlc7x007364@bugzilla.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: tilda - a quake like drop down terminal for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222372 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:48:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:48:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] Review Request: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122148.l1CLm20f007432@bugzilla.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: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |fitzsim at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:47 EST ------- Comments handled. %define short-name was used elsewhere. Only removed it from %Name. http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/gnu-trove-1.0.2-5jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/gnu-trove.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:49:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:49:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122149.l1CLnpkZ007616@bugzilla.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: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:49 EST ------- So other than the comments you made, was the rest of the package okay? Please add the other comments in the future (ie. even the ones that aren't problems). Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:52:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:52:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122152.l1CLqSOm007938@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:57:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227046] Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122157.l1CLv6TS008195@bugzilla.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: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227046 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-12 16:56 EST ------- Spec URL: http://fitzsim.org/packages/classpathx-jaxp.spec SRPM URL: http://fitzsim.org/packages/classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.1.beta1.10jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 21:57:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:57:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226298] Merge Review: pirut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122157.l1CLvgTl008274@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pirut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226298 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jima at beer.tclug.org |katzj at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-12 16:57 EST ------- Like I said, #1 and #3 weren't deal-breakers. #1 is a maybe-if-the-need-arises thing, #3 will sort itself out with time, as I understand it. You fixed my big two issues with the package, so as long as you work on those bugs, I think we can call pirut APPROVED for merging. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:05:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:05:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122205.l1CM5JFr008594@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jspaleta at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-12 17:05 EST ------- remove from doc section %dir %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties add Requires: gnome-backgrounds because you place an xml file down in /usr/share/gnome-background-properties/ which is already owned by gnome-backgrounds package. As per the review guidelines, directories can not be owned by multiple packages. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:07:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:07:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122207.l1CM7Xf4008719@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:07 EST ------- New SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/xpp3-1.1.3.8-1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:08:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:08:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122208.l1CM8POi008766@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:08 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147940) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147940&action=view) Fixed spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:08:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:08:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122208.l1CM8rA7008793@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |fnasser at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:08 EST ------- The spec that is attached still has the double Requires/missing BR problem. Here is the review for the attached specfile and http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.8jpp.src.rpm : Still remaining (things requiring fixes being with X): X rpmlint on jtidy srpm gives no output W: jtidy non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/HTML . ignore this one E: jtidy unknown-key GPG#c431416d . ignore this. it's just the JPackage GPG key. E: jtidy tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: jtidy non-utf8-spec-file jtidy.spec . I think this *might* be the accent in Ville's last name . run: iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 -o * package is named appropriately * specfile name matches %{name} X BuildRoot incorrect. Should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X remove "section free" ? why have the scripts sub-package at all? I think we should just put jtidy.script into the main jtidy package. This should be done at JPackage, though, I guess, so don't worry about it here. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English * specfile is legible ? I think the script should be renamed to just %{name}.script ? why use %__rm and not just rm? ? same for %__chmod, %ant, %__sed, and %__ln_s -> just nit-picks and not something that will hold up the review * source files match upstream (md5sum checked) X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 . I get a whole bunch of these errors using the latest gcj 4.1 branch (with the generics backport): [javac] 26. ERROR in /home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/jtidy-04aug2000r7-dev/src/org/w3c/tidy/DOMElementImpl.java (at line 31) [javac] public class DOMElementImpl extends DOMNodeImpl [javac] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [javac] The type DOMElementImpl must implement the inherited abstract method Element.setIdAttribute(String, boolean) X BuildRequires are proper . one of the duplicate "Requires: xml-commons-apis" should become a BuildRequires * no locale data so no find_lang necessary * package is not relocatable * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * no large docs so no -doc subpackage . javadoc package present * %doc files don't affect runtime * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * no desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine * final provides and requires are sane SHOULD: * package includes license text X package builds on i386 . see above X package functions . I don't know how to test this package X package builds in mock my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I'll try to test on Monday -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:09:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:09:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227046] Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122209.l1CM9JkD008838@bugzilla.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: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227046 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |fitzsim at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:08 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:11:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:11:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122211.l1CMBkYA008953@bugzilla.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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |gauret at free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-12 17:11 EST ------- Needs work: * Source URLs are: http://www.kde-apps.org/CONTENT/content-files/52641-amarokFS-qt3-0.4.2.tar.gz * An icon is installed directly under %_datadir/icons (/usr/share/icons/amarokFS.png). Please use the hicolor directory and its sub-directories, as required by the spec (al least a 48x48 icon) * Scriptlets: missing "gtk-update-icon-cache" in %post and %postun (wiki: ScriptletSnippets) Minor: * QT environment variable are not sourced * Desktop file: the Categories tag should not contain Application any more (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#desktop) * The package should contain the text of the license, please ask the author to include it in the tarball. It's not a blocker for the package, but it would be better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:13:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:13:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227061] Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122213.l1CMDXP8009097@bugzilla.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: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:13 EST ------- I've verified that it builds in mock. Fixed spec and SRPM: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax.spec http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:15:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:15:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225618] Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122215.l1CMFQ6E009171@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 mcepl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mcepl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mcepl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:15 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Many people still use Bitstream Vera because DejaVu is poorly hinted. Just for record, this seems to be an urban legend -- just asked on #dejavu and their comment was that this is nonsense, because all hinting was copied from (and some more fixed) from Vera. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:18:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:18:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122218.l1CMIL0j009353@bugzilla.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: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 ------- Additional Comments From klee at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:18 EST ------- After double chekcing, * it should not have Vendor Tag. And rest of them is okay. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:18:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:18:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122218.l1CMIN0a009366@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:18 EST ------- Removed weird release. Checked License (Apache-style) Waiting for Buildroot discussions conclusion on fedora-packaging fedora release appended Removed vendor and distribution tags Requires java and jpackage-utils -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:27:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:27:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122227.l1CMR1IU010080@bugzilla.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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:26 EST ------- X suggests the subsection needs attention + is a positive comment . is a specific comment about a problem MUST: X * package is named appropriately . 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage - match upstream tarball or project name + MD5SUMs match - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency + Consistent with JPackage - specfile should be %{name}.spec + OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) + OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease + N/A - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name + N/A * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved + LGPL OK. - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware + None of these apply * license field matches the actual license. + OK * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common + OK * specfile name matches %{name} + OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) + No patches, MD5 OK - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah + N/A * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. + OK X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) . See above about naming convention * license text included in package and marked with %doc + OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) + N/A * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) + OK X* rpmlint on .srpm and rpms gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there W: dtdparser non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". E: dtdparser tag-not-utf8 %changelog The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8. . use iconv to convert to UTF8 E: dtdparser non-utf8-spec-file dtdparser.spec The character encoding of the spec file is not UTF-8. Convert it for example using iconv(1). . use iconv to convert to UTF8 W: dtdparser mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 36) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. . Replace the tabs with spaces (:set tabexpand :%retab in vim) W: dtdparser non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". E: dtdparser tag-not-utf8 %changelog The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8. . use iconv to convert to UTF8 W: dtdparser-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". + All group warnings can be ignored. E: dtdparser-javadoc tag-not-utf8 %changelog The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8. . use iconv to convert to UTF8 E: dtdparser-javadoc zero-length /usr/share/javadoc/dtdparser-1.21/package-list + I checked the build root on a local build and this seems to be created by the javadoc task in ant. This can probably be ignored? * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. + OK * Packager tag should not be used + OK * Vendor and distribution tag should not be used + OK * use License and not Copyright + OK * Summary tag should not end in a period + OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) + N/A * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper + Seems OK, built on mock - builds in mock will flush out problems here * summary should be a short and concise description of the package + OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) + OK X make sure lines are <= 80 characters . minor fixes needed * specfile written in American English + OK X make a -doc sub-package if necessary Standardize the javadoc package handling around https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files + The above dont apply * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? + N/A * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS + RPM_BUILD_ROOT seems to be used consistently * don't use %makeinstall + N/A * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install + N/A * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps + OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines + None used yet * package should probably not be relocatable + Non relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content + OK X* package should own all directories and files + Use jpackage-utils in Requires(x), Requires since installing to %{_javadir}/%{_javadocdir} * there should be no %files duplicates + OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present + OK * %clean should be present + OK X* %doc files should not affect runtime . javadoc should use %doc for its files * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www + Not a webapp X* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPM rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/dtdparser-* dtdparser = 0:1.21-3jpp dtdparser-javadoc = 0:1.21-3jpp rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/noarch/dtdparser-* rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 . Requires needs jpakage-utils as mentioned earlier . Should have a requires on java? SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc + OK * package should build on i386 + Builds on mock * package should build in mock + OK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:33:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227090] Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122233.l1CMXSG1010584@bugzilla.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: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 klee at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |klee at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From klee at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:33 EST ------- Review comments: * Apache-like license is not proper license name. * license is not open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * rpmlint on .srpm gives some output W: nekohtml non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/HTML W: nekohtml invalid-license Apache-like E: nekohtml unknown-key GPG#c431416d * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Vendor tag should not be used * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:34:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122234.l1CMYT4m010648@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |klee at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:34 EST ------- Comments handled. No license txt but license is specified on web-site. There was no issue with changelog nor the macros. http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/jrexx.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:40:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:40:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122240.l1CMeQne010977@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-12 17:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > gimmie borks on rawhide. > > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/gimmie/gimmie_gui.py", line 253, in > do_raise > self.tooltip.position_to_rect(rect, screen) > SystemError: Python/getargs.c:1245: bad argument to internal function > Do you have all of gnome-python2-gnomekeyring, PyXML, python-sexy, and gnome-python2-canvas installed ? If not, can you please install them and check if you still hit the error. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:44:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122244.l1CMi0QO011362@bugzilla.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: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:43 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/javassist.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/javassist-3.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm Other things fixed: Renamed specfile to javassist.spec Remove %define section devel Added .1%{?dist} It still doesn't build due to the com.sun.jdi dependencies. I don't see this getting fixed until we import Keith's JDWP work. CCing Keith Seitz and Tom Tromey to get their opinion as to whether or not we'll have com.sun.jdi.VirtualMachine any time soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:45:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:45:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227090] Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122245.l1CMjRQh011436@bugzilla.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: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:51:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:51:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122251.l1CMpE9I011673@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 fnasser at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147930|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:51 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147941) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147941&action=view) Fixed spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:54:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122254.l1CMsNda011965@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:54 EST ------- http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.8jpp.1.src.rpm iconv run (thanks for the hint) section removed R->BR both in attached spec and SRPM now (got the wrong spec file attached before) added .1%{?dist} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:55:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:55:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122255.l1CMtNjH012103@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|klee at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:56:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:56:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227061] Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122256.l1CMu6GT012188@bugzilla.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: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:56 EST ------- Most of it is okay. I found the following issues: - License file is not present in the rpm, it should be, and marked %doc - javadoc directory should be marked %doc - Line 5 in %install is > 80 characters -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 22:58:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:58:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227063] Review Request: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122258.l1CMwrPC012454@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227063 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:58 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) * license text included in package and marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - OK: W: jakarta-commons-cli non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Packager tag should not be used X Vendor tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - add %define _with_gcj_support 1 - remove Vendor and Distribution tag - fix release tag: 8jpp.1%{?dist} - Requires jpackage-utils in post, postun until javadoc is fixed, after that it can be just a Require * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) X make sure lines are <= 80 characters line 109, 110 are longer than 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs [pcheung at topcat downloads]$ rpm -qpl --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/noarch/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-8jpp.noarch.rpm jakarta-commons-cli = 0:1.0-8jpp /usr/share/doc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0 /usr/share/doc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/LICENSE.txt /usr/share/doc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/README.txt /usr/share/java/commons-cli-1.0.jar /usr/share/java/commons-cli.jar /usr/share/java/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0.jar /usr/share/java/jakarta-commons-cli.jar [pcheung at topcat downloads]$ rpm -qpl --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/noarch/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-8jpp.noarch.rpm jakarta-commons-lang jakarta-commons-logging rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 /usr/share/doc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0 /usr/share/doc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/LICENSE.txt /usr/share/doc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/README.txt /usr/share/java/commons-cli-1.0.jar /usr/share/java/commons-cli.jar /usr/share/java/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0.jar /usr/share/java/jakarta-commons-cli.jar [pcheung at topcat downloads]$ rpm -qpl --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/noarch/jakarta-commons-cli-javadoc-1.0-8jpp.noarch.rpm jakarta-commons-cli-javadoc = 0:1.0-8jpp /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0 /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/allclasses-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/allclasses-noframe.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/constant-values.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/deprecated-list.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/help-doc.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/index-all.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/index.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/AlreadySelectedException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/BasicParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/CommandLine.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/CommandLineParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/GnuParser.html/usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/HelpFormatter.StringBufferComparator.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/HelpFormatter.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/MissingArgumentException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/MissingOptionException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/Option.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/OptionBuilder.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/OptionGroup.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/Options.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/ParseException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/Parser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/PatternOptionBuilder.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/PosixParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/TypeHandler.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/UnrecognizedOptionException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/AlreadySelectedException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/BasicParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/CommandLine.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/CommandLineParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/GnuParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/HelpFormatter.StringBufferComparator.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/HelpFormatter.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/MissingArgumentException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/MissingOptionException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/Option.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/OptionBuilder.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/OptionGroup.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/Options.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/ParseException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/Parser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/PatternOptionBuilder.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/PosixParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/TypeHandler.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/UnrecognizedOptionException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/package-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/package-summary.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/package-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/package-use.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/overview-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/package-list /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/packages.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/resources /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/resources/inherit.gif /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/serialized-form.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/stylesheet.css [pcheung at topcat downloads]$ rpm -qpl --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/noarch/jakarta-commons-cli-javadoc-1.0-8jpp.noarch.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0 /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/allclasses-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/allclasses-noframe.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/constant-values.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/deprecated-list.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/help-doc.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/index-all.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/index.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/AlreadySelectedException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/BasicParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/CommandLine.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/CommandLineParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/GnuParser.html/usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/HelpFormatter.StringBufferComparator.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/HelpFormatter.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/MissingArgumentException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/MissingOptionException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/Option.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/OptionBuilder.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/OptionGroup.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/Options.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/ParseException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/Parser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/PatternOptionBuilder.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/PosixParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/TypeHandler.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/UnrecognizedOptionException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/AlreadySelectedException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/BasicParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/CommandLine.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/CommandLineParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/GnuParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/HelpFormatter.StringBufferComparator.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/HelpFormatter.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/MissingArgumentException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/MissingOptionException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/Option.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/OptionBuilder.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/OptionGroup.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/Options.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/ParseException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/Parser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/PatternOptionBuilder.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/PosixParser.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/TypeHandler.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/class-use/UnrecognizedOptionException.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/package-frame.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/package-summary.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/package-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/org/apache/commons/cli/package-use.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/overview-tree.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/package-list /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/packages.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/resources /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/resources/inherit.gif /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/serialized-form.html /usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0/stylesheet.css * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs W: jakarta-commons-cli non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jakarta-commons-cli-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: jakarta-commons-cli-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jakarta-commons-cli-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 23:02:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:02:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227106] Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122302.l1CN2K3n012940@bugzilla.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: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227106 ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-12 18:02 EST ------- plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name ?? * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? ?? - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware ?? - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. NO * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot -- NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp.src.rpm W: plexus-utils non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-utils invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 E: plexus-utils unknown-key GPG#c431416d W: plexus-utils mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. OK * Packager tag should not be used NO * Vendor tag should not be used -- Vendor: JPackage Project -- OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement NO * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 -- [junit] Testcase: testContentEquals took 0.087 sec [junit] Caused an ERROR [junit] null [junit] java.lang.NullPointerException [junit] at org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtils.copyURLToFile(FileUtils.java:955) [junit] at org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtilsTest.testContentEquals(FileUtilsTest.java:172) BUILD FAILED /builddir/build/BUILD/plexus-utils-1.2/build.xml:45: Test org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtilsTest failed -- ?? * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? NO * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- ... %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/plexus ... -- OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 NO * package should build in mock -- [junit] Testcase: testContentEquals took 0.087 sec [junit] Caused an ERROR [junit] null [junit] java.lang.NullPointerException [junit] at org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtils.copyURLToFile(FileUtils.java:955) [junit] at org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtilsTest.testContentEquals(FileUtilsTest.java:172) BUILD FAILED /builddir/build/BUILD/plexus-utils-1.2/build.xml:45: Test org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtilsTest failed -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 23:02:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:02:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122302.l1CN2ZWf012980@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-12 18:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > MUST: > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. > * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > W: objectweb-anttask non-standard-group Development/Java This warning can be ignored. > W: objectweb-anttask unversioned-explicit-provides owanttask Fixed. > W: objectweb-anttask rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Fixed. > W: objectweb-anttask mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 37) Fixed. > X Vendor tag should not be used Fixed. > X specfile is legible > - Requires jpackage-utils in post and postun javadoc Fixed. > - Get rid of Vendor and Distribution Fixed. > - Fix Release tag Fixed. > - Fix Source0: > http://download.fr2.forge.objectweb.org/monolog/ow_util_ant_tasks_1.3.2.zip Fixed. > - When adding the gcj bits, BuildArch: noarch should be removed > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > line 80 is longer than 80 characters Fixed. > * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > W: objectweb-anttask non-standard-group Development/Java Ignoring this warning. > W: objectweb-anttask incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.3.2-2jpp 0:1.3.2-1jpp Fixed. > W: objectweb-anttask no-documentation Fixed. > W: objectweb-anttask-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation Fixed. i> W: objectweb-anttask-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm Fixed. > W: objectweb-anttask-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 23:04:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:04:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227106] Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122304.l1CN41j6013080@bugzilla.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: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227106 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 23:06:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] Review Request: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122306.l1CN64am013411@bugzilla.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: gnu.trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-12 18:06 EST ------- $ rpm -qp --requires RPMS/noarch/gnu-trove-1.0.2-5jpp.1.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 $ rpm -qp --provides RPMS/noarch/gnu-trove-1.0.2-5jpp.1.noarch.rpm gnu.trove <= 0:1.0.2-5jpp.1 gnu-trove = 0:1.0.2-5jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires RPMS/noarch/gnu-trove-javadoc-1.0.2-5jpp.1.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 $ rpm -qp --provides RPMS/noarch/gnu-trove-javadoc-1.0.2-5jpp.1.noarch.rpm gnu.trove-javadoc <= 0:1.0.2-5jpp.1 gnu-trove-javadoc = 0:1.0.2-5jpp.1 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 23:27:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:27:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227112] Review Request: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122327.l1CNRX9N014624@bugzilla.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: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227112 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-12 18:27 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM here: http://overholt.ca/fedora/relaxngDatatype.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) > ?? * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? > ?? - OSI-approved It's BSD licensed so it's fine. > ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) I've verified that the upstream zip matches the one in the SRPM. > NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form We should use %{?dist}. I've fixed this. > NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > $ rpmlint relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm > W: relaxngDatatype non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java This is fine. > E: relaxngDatatype unknown-key GPG#c431416d This is just the JPackage GPG key. > W: relaxngDatatype unversioned-explicit-obsoletes msv I've added a <= %{version}. > W: relaxngDatatype mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 50) I fixed this. > NO * Vendor tag should not be used Fixed. Removed Distribution as well. > NO * description expands upon summary Fixed. > NO * use macros appropriately and consistently > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > install -Dpm 644 %{name}.jar \ > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar I think this is fine. > NO * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > > $ rpmlint relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.noarch.rpm > W: relaxngDatatype non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java This is fine. > E: relaxngDatatype obsolete-not-provided msv See above. > W: relaxngDatatype wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/relaxngDatatype-1.0/copying.txt Fixed. I also fixed it for the javadoc-generated HTML files and added a patch to compress the jar to supress an rpmlint warning. This package should be gcj-ified at some point. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 23:40:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:40:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226704] Review Request: iasl - Intel acpi compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122340.l1CNe5It015207@bugzilla.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: iasl - Intel acpi compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226704 wolters.liste at gmx.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wolters.liste at gmx.net ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-12 18:40 EST ------- Why do you just build iasl? Is there any special reason why you do not take the whole package? Maybe the other parts can be useful as well?! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 23:47:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:47:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122347.l1CNl5p1015386@bugzilla.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: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |fitzsim at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-12 18:46 EST ------- Spec file and SRPM are here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/xmldb-api -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 23:47:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:47:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122347.l1CNltbc015432@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From dzrudy at gmail.com 2007-02-12 18:47 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147943) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147943&action=view) xorg crash I have rebuilt and installed the src.rpm package as root today and X server doesn't start. I also installed kernel-devel and rebuilt it as root (rebuild as user doesn't work due to permissions as in my earlier comment). What's weird, is that when I removed kernel-devel and choose the older version (I belive it was linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.6.src.rpm) which was working well a few weeks ago, the X server still crashes although the same steps worked for me before. I think that it might be due to some of the Fedora updates that came out in the meantime and broke the wacom module but I'm out of ideas what's wrong :-/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 12 23:52:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:52:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225954] Merge Review: junit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702122352.l1CNqwH0015592@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: junit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225954 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-12 18:52 EST ------- I see you were just running untabify. I made a few more small changes and committed this on your behalf. $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-demo-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpm W: junit-demo no-documentation OK because this is a sub-package and the base package contains documentation. $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpm junit-3.8.2.jar.so junit = 3.8.2-3jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcj_bc.so.1 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-manual-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpm junit-manual = 3.8.2-3jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-manual-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-javadoc-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpm junit-javadoc = 3.8.2-3jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-javadoc-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-demo-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpm java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat junit = 3.8.2-3jpp.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-demo-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpm junit-demo = 3.8.2-3jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-debuginfo-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpmjunit-3.8.2.jar.so.debug junit-debuginfo = 3.8.2-3jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/sources/rpms/junit/devel/i386/junit-debuginfo-3.8.2-3jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 00:06:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:06:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227064] Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130006.l1D06HFV015995@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227064 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 19:06 EST ------- X suggests the subsection needs attention + is a positive comment . is a specific comment about a problem MUST: X* package is named appropriately . 0:1.2-2jpp -> 0:1.2-2jpp.1%{?dist} . http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage - match upstream tarball or project name + The project is commons-io upstream (Apache) but since JPackage is consistent with the jakarta-commons packages, this is fine IMO - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency + OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec + OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) + OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease + OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name + N/A * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved + ASL - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware + None of the above apply * license field matches the actual license. + OK * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common + OK * specfile name matches %{name} + OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) + OK - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah + N/A * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. + OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + OK X* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) - Fix this based on the link mentioned above * license text included in package and marked with %doc + OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) + N/A * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) + OK X* rpmlint on .srpm and rpms gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there W: jakarta-commons-io non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". W: jakarta-commons-io-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". XW: jakarta-commons-io-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jakarta-commons-io-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm . You can get rid of these warnings by implementing javadoc handling as described in the following URL (since no %post/%postun is required): https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html W: jakarta-commons-io non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". . Group warnings can be ignored in all cases. W: jakarta-commons-io mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 52) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. . Use :set expandtab and :%retab in vim to get rid of these * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. + OK * Packager tag should not be used + OK X* Vendor and distribution tag should not be used . Please remove these * use License and not Copyright + OK * Summary tag should not end in a period + OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) + OK X * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement . Minor fixes in formatting if possible (<80 character lines etc.) * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 + Builds on mock * BuildRequires are proper + Builds on mock * summary should be a short and concise description of the package + OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) + OK X * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English + OK X* make a -doc sub-package if necessary . Javadoc package should be changed to implement the new standard from JPackage, see link mentioned above . Add Requires(x) on /bin/rm, /bin/ln etc. as appropriate - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? + None of these apply * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS + OK * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install + None of these apply X* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps . Use cp -p and install -p where possible * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines + N/A * package should probably not be relocatable + Non-relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content + OK X* package should own all directories and files . Need %{_javadocdir}/%{_javadir} which are owned by jpackage-utils Should add Requires(pre/postun) on jpackage-utils in javadoc package and main package * there should be no %files duplicates + OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present + OK * %clean should be present + OK * %doc files should not affect runtime + OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www + Not a webapp * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs + OK, as long as the suggestions about naming and requires etc. are implemented rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/jakarta-commons-io-* jakarta-commons-io = 0:1.2-2jpp jakarta-commons-io-javadoc = 0:1.2-2jpp rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/noarch/jakarta-commons-io-* rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc + OK * package should build on i386 + OK, builds mock * package should build in mock + OK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 00:07:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:07:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227064] Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130007.l1D07oam016107@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227064 ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 19:07 EST ------- Spec needs to be decorated for aot compilation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 00:18:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:18:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227046] Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130018.l1D0IqCc016701@bugzilla.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: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227046 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 00:23:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:23:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227090] Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130023.l1D0Nv6G016962@bugzilla.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: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-12 19:23 EST ------- Comments addressed. http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.vermillionskye.com/donwloads/nekohtml.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 00:30:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:30:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130030.l1D0Uu9d017135@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 dzrudy at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147943|application/octet-stream |text/plain mime type| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 00:33:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:33:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130033.l1D0Xguh017218@bugzilla.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: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-12 19:33 EST ------- - incorrect build root - %{?dist} should be used - remove javadoc %post and %postun sections $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/SRPMS/junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.src.rpm W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing E: junitperf tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: junitperf non-utf8-spec-file junitperf.spec W: junitperf mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 89) $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.noarch.rpm W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing E: junitperf tag-not-utf8 %changelog $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/junitperf-javadoc-1.9.1-2jpp.noarch.rpm W: junitperf-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation E: junitperf-javadoc tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: junitperf-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: junitperf-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/junitperf-demo-1.9.1-2jpp.noarch.rpm W: junitperf-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing E: junitperf-demo tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: junitperf-demo no-documentation - remove Vendor tag - 80 characters per line -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 01:00:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130100.l1D10ipc017812@bugzilla.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: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-12 20:00 EST ------- $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/SRPMS/xmldb-api-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.src.rpm W: xmldb-api non-standard-group Development/Java OK. $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm W: xmldb-api non-standard-group Development/Java OK. W: xmldb-api incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.fc7 1:0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1 OK, caused by .fc7. $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-sdk-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm W: xmldb-api-sdk non-standard-group Development/Java OK. W: xmldb-api-sdk no-documentation OK. $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-javadoc-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm E: xmldb-api-javadoc zero-length /usr/share/javadoc/xmldb-api-0.1/package-list Why is this zero-length? - inconsistent use of %{buildroot} - you should use install when installing the license file - why are these lines needed: Requires(pre): jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 Requires(post): jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm xmldb-api-0.1.jar.so xmldb-api = 1:0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 junit libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcj_bc.so.1 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) xalan-j2 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-sdk-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm xmldb-api-sdk-0.1.jar.so xmldb-api-sdk = 1:0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-sdk-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcj_bc.so.1 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) xmldb-api = 0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-javadoc-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm xmldb-api-javadoc = 1:0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-javadoc-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-debuginfo-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm xmldb-api-0.1.jar.so.debug xmldb-api-sdk-0.1.jar.so.debug xmldb-api-debuginfo = 1:0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-debuginfo-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Confirmed build on i386. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 01:06:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:06:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225659] Merge Review: cracklib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130106.l1D16ikq018052@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cracklib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225659 nalin at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From nalin at redhat.com 2007-02-12 20:06 EST ------- Thanks for the detailed review! I don't have a good reason for leaving the static library in there, so it's gone. I've updated the cracklib-words.gz file and noted its retrieval time in the .spec file, and noted that the pass-file.gz comes from bugzilla. The trigger script now specifies ldconfig as its interpreter, so it shouldn't need the shell at that stage. I think that's got it sorted, building 2.9-9 as a candidate fix. Please let me know if you (or anyone else reading this) spots anything I've missed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 01:16:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:16:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227106] Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130116.l1D1Glx9018315@bugzilla.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: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227106 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-12 20:16 EST ------- New files are here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-utils/ I have disable two test files, both of which are explained in the spec file. Package does not have a license file in it, so it will not be installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 01:24:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:24:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227057] Review Request: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130124.l1D1O6rH018632@bugzilla.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: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227057 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-12 20:23 EST ------- $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gnu-regexp-demo-1.1.4-10jpp.1.noarch.rpm W: gnu-regexp-demo no-documentation $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp.1.noarch.rpm --requires rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp.1.noarch.rpm --requires gnu.regexp = 1.1.4-10jpp.1 gnu-regexp = 1.1.4-10jpp.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gnu-regexp-demo-1.1.4-10jpp.1.noarch.rpm gnu-regexp = 1.1.4-10jpp.1 gnu.getopt rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gnu-regexp-demo-1.1.4-10jpp.1.noarch.rpm gnu.regexp-demo = 1.1.4-10jpp.1 gnu-regexp-demo = 1.1.4-10jpp.1 $ rpm -qp --requires /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gnu-regexp-javadoc-1.1.4-10jpp.1.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 $ rpm -qp --provides /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/gnu-regexp-javadoc-1.1.4-10jpp.1.noarch.rpm gnu.regexp-javadoc = 1.1.4-10jpp.1 gnu-regexp-javadoc = 1.1.4-10jpp.1 Spec URL: http://fitzsim.org/packages/gnu-regexp.spec SRPM URL: http://fitzsim.org/packages/gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 01:24:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:24:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130124.l1D1OTvC018654@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-12 20:24 EST ------- ogdi 3.1.6 released. http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=11181 Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.6-1.src.rpm - new upstream version. - drop all patches, now they are upstream. - remove useless source code cleanup from spec. - pkgconfig is now autogenerated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 01:30:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:30:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130130.l1D1UfWe018852@bugzilla.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: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-12 20:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/xmldb-api-javadoc-0.1-0.1.20011111cvs.1jpp.1.i386.rpm > E: xmldb-api-javadoc zero-length /usr/share/javadoc/xmldb-api-0.1/package-list > > Why is this zero-length? > That is an autogenerated file. I did not want to touch it because it will change from build to build. > - inconsistent use of %{buildroot} Fixed. > - you should use install when installing the license file Fixed. > - why are these lines needed: > > Requires(pre): jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 > Requires(post): jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 > Actually, that should be Requires and Requires(postun) (fixed now). /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils, and because yum does not guarantee installation order with just "Requires", a requires(pre/postun) is required to ensure that no unowned dirs are left behind. New spec and srpm are in same location. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 01:36:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:36:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130136.l1D1aIvQ019073@bugzilla.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: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |fitzsim at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 01:38:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:38:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224245] Merge Review: squirrelmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130138.l1D1cehP019233@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: squirrelmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224245 ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-12 20:38 EST ------- Thank you for explaining the source of our problems. I was not aware of the existence of the "extra decoding library" until recently. I do not fully understand the implications this yet, but I suspect we did things in a stupid way in an attempt to workaround individual problems. Additionally, I did not have the priority or time to investigate deeply into this software. I have to admit that my opinions about squirrelmail have been negatively colored over the past years having been forced to add more and more ugly encoding hacks to our package due to widespread complaints by our users. Nobody had pointed me at the "extra decoding library" and instead continued to pile more patches. This led me to believe (perhaps improperly) that squirrelmail was not evolving to modern standards, hence my "terrible" comment. To be honest, I still have a negative feeling about squirrelmail. For years now I've been wanting to remove it from Fedora and ship something else. But I can be convinced otherwise, if squirrelmail is capable of being standards compliant, usable to users, and easy to maintain. I need help. I would like to undo the ugly hacks that we have included due to our lack of understanding, and ship squirrelmail as close to upstream as possible. I guess the first step is to remove all the re-encoding stuff, add the extra decoding library, and see if any of our patches are relevant for upstream. Would you be interested to co-maintain the squirrelmail package within Fedora? We will soon have the ability to grant you commit and build access to the package so that we can more easily work together in package maintainership. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 02:12:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227117] Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130212.l1D2CTB8020331@bugzilla.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: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 21:12 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > X MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be > posted > in the review. > rpmlint output: > E: tagsoup summary-too-long A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that > parses > HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish Fixed. > W: tagsoup non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML Ignoring > W: tagsoup mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 41) Fixed. > Error while reading /home/pcheung/tagsoup: error reading package header ? Dont see this anymore > X MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. > > Release: should be 1jpp.1%{?dist} Fixed. > BuildRoot: should be > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Done > X MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the > license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the > license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. > > LICENCE file missing in %doc Fixed. > > X MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. > not needed: > Vendor: JPackage Project > Distribution: JPackage Fixed > When adding gcj bits, remove BuildArch: noarch ? > The license is a disjunction of the Academic Free License, > version 3.0, and the GNU General Public License, version 2.0 The GPL (like) item in the License field is good enough IMO > lines are > 80 characters: line 37, 76 Fixed but some lines are forced to overflow (especially after GCJ support) > URL doesn't exist: http://mercury.ccil.org/~cowan/XML/tagsoup/ Changed to http://home.ccil.org/~cowan/XML/tagsoup/ Also fixed the javadoc handling following the suggestion here: https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html NOTE: SRPM/RPMS available at: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/tagsoup/tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 02:15:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:15:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227117] Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130215.l1D2FBN5020395@bugzilla.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: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 21:14 EST ------- GCJ support has also been added -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 02:18:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:18:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] New: Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod 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=228425 Summary: Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tmz at pobox.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://pobox.com/~tmz/fedora/gtkpod-0.99.8-1.fc6-result/gtkpod.spec SRPM URL: http://pobox.com/~tmz/fedora/gtkpod-0.99.8-1.fc6-result/gtkpod-0.99.8-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: gtkpod is a platform independent Graphical User Interface for Apple's iPod using GTK2. It supports the first to fifth Generation including the iPod mini, iPod Photo, iPod Shuffle, iPod nano, and iPod Video. (Mock logs and i386 packages are also available at http://pobox.com/~tmz/fedora/gtkpod-0.99.8-1.fc6-result/) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 02:23:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:23:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130223.l1D2NDhO020955@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |gtkpod-review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 02:26:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:26:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130226.l1D2Qwjc021063@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-12 21:26 EST ------- all fixed. new spec and srpm files: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/ntfs-config.spec http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/ntfs-config-0.5.4-2.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 02:45:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:45:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130245.l1D2jCoQ021466@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |lxtnow at gmail.com Group| |fedora_contrib -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 02:52:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227117] Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130252.l1D2qM1j021650@bugzilla.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: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-12 21:52 EST ------- I'm still getting this on the srpm: W: tagsoup mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 54) (this is on the gcj requires) and this on the binary rpm: W: tagsoup incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.0.1-1jpp.1.fc7 0:1.0.1-1jpp.1 Buildroot should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n (-root missing) Also, since gcj support is added, we need to have %define _with_gcj_support 1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 02:56:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:56:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130256.l1D2u7WG021726@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 21:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > remove from doc section > %dir %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties > > add Requires: gnome-backgrounds > > because you place an xml file down in /usr/share/gnome-background-properties/ > which is already owned by gnome-backgrounds package. > > As per the review guidelines, directories can not be owned by multiple packages. > > -jef Ah.. This guidelines should read as: ---------------------------------------------------- The directory must not be owned if there is other package * which owns the directory * and the package _is required_ by this package ---------------------------------------------------- So this package should not own %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties if this package _really_ requires gnome-backgrounds. Actually my system has gnome-backgrounds-basic but does not have gnome-backgrounds. So in this case this package _must_ own %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 02:57:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:57:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130257.l1D2vcbj021798@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 21:57 EST ------- s|gnome-backgrounds-basic|desktop-backgrounds-basic| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 03:23:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:23:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130323.l1D3NENH023312@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-12 22:23 EST ------- Hello; and sorry for not getting back to this bug earlier. I was swamped with work and class stuff most of last week. :( I've updated the deluge spec and SRPM with your suggestions from comment 15; and the files are on my webspace. Spec: http://www.thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SPECs/deluge.spec SRPM: http://www.thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SRPMs/deluge-0.4.1-4.src.rpm David: I recently downloaded the entire FC6/x86_64 DVD image overnight via the torrent using Deluge and received no such trouble. I suspect it is something in Rawhide eating more babies. The other two issues are things that need to be resolved upstream, and we'll just need to poke and prod them until they do. :) Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 03:36:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:36:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130336.l1D3asoJ024188@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-12 22:36 EST ------- Ok, I just successfully import the SRPM. I'm in the stage of "make build", but plague return failed : /usr/bin/plague-client build fuse-convmvfs fuse-convmvfs-0_2_3-2_fc7 devel Server returned an error: Insufficient privileges. I've configured plague client, and "plague-client list_builders" runs well. So do I have to wait for something to sync again? Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 03:51:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:51:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130351.l1D3pupG025104@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-12 22:51 EST ------- Hello; and sorry for not getting back to this bug earlier. I was swamped with work and class stuff most of last week. :( The RPATH in the library is for the %_libdir/nemiver/plugins directory, so this seems intended and harmless. In regards to the execmod denials, I've marked it as textrel_shlib_t for the time being; and once I figure out what it is doing to cause the error (or, more importantly, how to reproduce it), I'll send a mail to the upstream devs about this. I've posted updated files to my webspace: SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SRPMs/nemiver-0.3.0-4.src.rpm Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SPECs/nemiver.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 04:07:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:07:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130407.l1D47qXr026270@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 23:07 EST ------- Well, if you did a procedure properly, perhaps within a day you will be able to do "make build" with success. I forgot for my case, however http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/BuildSystemClientSetup says: ---------------------------------------------------------- Please Notice Sync to buildsys is a daily thing. So, sometimes you might have to wait for a day to get access of the build server to give "make build" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 04:28:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:28:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130428.l1D4SIlS027801@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-12 23:28 EST ------- Where can I find the spec file and the srpm? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 04:32:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:32:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130432.l1D4WxTt028190@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 23:32 EST ------- I rechecked the new release in mock. It built fine. rpmlint is silent. So new package is ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 04:33:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:33:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222594] Review Request: seedit: SELinux Policy Editor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130433.l1D4X9mx028213@bugzilla.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: seedit: SELinux Policy Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222594 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-12 23:33 EST ------- Yuichi, Well I saw you upgraded seedit to 2.1.0, however current seedit has ---------------------------------------------- ynakam AT hitachisoft.jp: seedit FE6 > FE7 (0:2.1.0-3.fc6 > 0:2.1.0-2.fc7) ---------------------------------------------- So please bump the release of FE7 seedit to -3 for now. (Note: this mail should be received if you are subscribing to fedora-maintainers mailing list). Note: when you failed to send a queue by some mistakes (e.g. just forgot to add a patch, making a tag failed with some reason..) and you just want to bump release, you can set the release as 2%{?dist}.1, for example. The details are: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#DistBump -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 04:37:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:37:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130437.l1D4b3sc028561@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-12 23:37 EST ------- Thanks Michael for your comments. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 04:40:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:40:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130440.l1D4eKgK028887@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-12 23:40 EST ------- -------- BuildRequires -------- * gtk2-devel for BuildRequires is redundant. libglade2-devel requires gtk2-devel. -------- %prep -------- * You should comment why you apply a patch. * Desktop file: personnaly, i don't like to use cat << eof to create desktop file. I think it's better to add desktop file as Source file. "X-livna" must be removed from categorie. --------- %build --------- looks good --------- %install --------- * Please use install -Dm 644 instead of %{__install} -D -m 0644 * Same thing for %{__mkdir_p}. * in desktop-file-intall entry: use of "--vendor livna" is deprecated and must be removed, just use --vendor "" Also add --mode 0644 --------- Scriptlet --------- you should make use of GTK+ icon cache See : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda %post touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %postun touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || -------- %files -------- The file NEWS is useless, you can drop it as its contents refers to ChangeLog -------- Rpmlint isn't silent from srpm file: -- E: gtkpod unknown-key PGP#beaf0ce3 -- SOULDN'T: Packages must not be sign with your own key -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:03:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:03:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] New: Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC 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=228434 Summary: Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mastahnke at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/x2vnc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/x2vnc-1.7.2-1.src.rpm Description: This program will let you use two screens on two different comptuers as if they were connected to the same computer. Even if one computer runs non-POSIX operating systems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:03:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:03:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130503.l1D53I3p030819@bugzilla.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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-13 00:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > ============================== > RPMLINT OUTPUT FOR SOURCE RPM: > ============================== > > W: dom2-core-tests non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML Ignoring since groups can apparently be arbitrary > W: dom2-core-tests invalid-license W3C Software License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/W3C.php suggests license is OSI approved Using W3C License in this field > W: dom2-core-tests rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Removed > W: dom2-core-tests mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 42) Fixed > W: dom2-core-tests class-path-in-manifest /dom2-core-tests-20040405.jar Ignoring since these are mandated by package build process > =============================== > RPMLINT OUTPUT FOR BINARY RPMS: > =============================== > > dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp.noarch.rpm: > ------------------------------------------------- > W: dom2-core-tests non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML Ignoring since groups can apparently be arbitrary > W: dom2-core-tests invalid license W3C Software license See above > W: dom2-core-tests no-documentation There doesnt seem to be anything in the build directory to use for doc, can we waive this? > dom2-core-tests-javadoc-00,01-0.20040405-1jpp.noarch.rpm: > --------------------------------------------------------- > W: dom2-core-tests-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation Ignore as above > W: dom2-core-tests-javadoc invalid-license W3C Software License Changed to W3C License > W: dom2-core-tests-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > w: dom2-core-tests-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Removed the use of post and postun scripts > - Fix %Release tag. Fixed > > - Remove %Vendor and &Distribution. > > - Add "-%(%{__id_u} -n)" to the end of %BuildRoot. > > - In the future, when adding gcj support, remove %BuildArch. > Fixed > - Change the changelog entry format. Ralph's email should read > "". > I think the guidelines are more particular about the location of ENVR in the changelog The SRPM is at: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/dom2-core-tests/dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:05:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:05:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130505.l1D55UbY030942@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-13 00:05 EST ------- The kernel-devel is just needed for reference. The xorg.conf is tricky. But from the log you it include it seems you have include the wacom and stylus and so. This should be good. To be 100% sure this crash isn't caused by the xorg.conf comment # the lines in the section "ServerLayout" and the load "wacom" in the section "Module". However the wacom module should fail to load if something is wrong, it should not crash the X server. Hmmzzz you are trying to rebuild it for 64 bit. This could be a spec issue. Try to download and compile the source from http://linuxwacom.sourceforge.net/index.php/dl use the following configure: ./configure --prefix=/usr --with-xorg-sdk=/usr --with-tcl=/usr --with-tk=/usr --enable-xserver64 and then make and make install. ! remember ! if you want to uninstall this run: make uninstall If the X server runs after compiling an installing it yourself, then it's definitely a spec bug. And if your X server still crashes then you should try to make a new xorg.conf file. Rename it to xorg.backup and run system-config-display, this should give you a new xorg.conf file without the wacom stuff. I hope this will work -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:23:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:23:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130523.l1D5NTTN031816@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-13 00:23 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147956) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147956&action=view) My xorg.conf for reference Take special notice to the position of load "wacom" (it's at the top), the mouse0 section and the various Section "InputDevice" (the PressCurve should be in for pressure support, and the device should point to an existing /dev/input/wacom (a symlink to event3)) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:33:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:33:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130533.l1D5XWqK032271@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 orion at cora.nwra.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|orion at cora.nwra.com |ikent at redhat.com OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From orion at cora.nwra.com 2007-02-13 00:33 EST ------- Looks good. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:37:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130537.l1D5bKsi032457@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-13 00:37 EST ------- rpmlint output is below Package named correctly Spec file matches package name GPL license confirmed, however actual text not included in package Spec is in English Spec file is readable md5sums from upstream match source in SRPM builds on i386 all build dependencies listed SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. -- since this a key package, this might be good Spec file does not use macros for bin, sbin and what not throughout. Use of prereq, which isn't seen much anymore. Usually, the PreReq tag should be replaced by plain Requires. [builder at rawhide i386]$ rpmlint coreutils-6.7-3.i386.rpm E: coreutils setuid-binary /bin/su root 04755 E: coreutils non-standard-executable-perm /bin/su 04755 E: coreutils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/colorls.sh E: coreutils executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/colorls.sh 0755 E: coreutils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/colorls.csh E: coreutils executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/colorls.csh 0755 W: coreutils dangerous-command-in-%pre rm W: coreutils dangerous-command-in-%post mv [builder at rawhide SRPMS]$ rpmlint coreutils-6.7-3.src.rpm W: coreutils strange-permission colorls.sh 0775 W: coreutils strange-permission colorls.csh 0775 W: coreutils prereq-use /sbin/install-info W: coreutils prereq-use grep, findutils W: coreutils unversioned-explicit-provides stat W: coreutils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes fileutils W: coreutils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes sh-utils W: coreutils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes stat W: coreutils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes textutils W: coreutils make-check-outside-check-section make check W: coreutils mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 13) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:45:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:45:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130545.l1D5jYSU000460@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-13 00:45 EST ------- Hi Xavier, > * gtk2-devel for BuildRequires is redundant. libglade2-devel > requires gtk2-devel. Fixed. > * You should comment why you apply a patch. Okay. Done. In this case the patch is from upstream and is required to build against libgpod-0.4.2. > * Desktop file: > personnaly, i don't like to use cat << eof to create desktop file. > I think it's better to add desktop file as Source file. Done. > "X-livna" must be removed from categorie. Egad, that's an embarrassing copy and paste error on my part (I was working on an update to gtkpod for livna). Fixed. > * Please use install -Dm 644 instead of %{__install} -D -m 0644 > * Same thing for %{__mkdir_p}. Done. > * in desktop-file-intall entry: > use of "--vendor livna" is deprecated and must be removed, > just use --vendor "" Shouldn't it be fedora instead? The guidlines say "If upstream uses , leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as ." I used fedora in the latest spec. > Also add --mode 0644 Done. (Is that really needed? It's not in the guidelines and the file in a built package are the proper mode. I'm curious now. :) > you should make use of GTK+ icon cache > See : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda > > %post > touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : > %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : > > %postun > touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || : > %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || The icon isn't installed into %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor but into %{_datadir}/pixmaps. I didn't think that was relevant then. Or are you suggesting that I install the icon under %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor? > The file NEWS is useless, you can drop it as its contents refers to ChangeLog Done. > Rpmlint isn't silent from srpm file: > -- E: gtkpod unknown-key PGP#beaf0ce3 -- > > SOULDN'T: Packages must not be sign with your own key Sorry, I'm a bit of a crypto geek and I sign things a lot. Here are the updated files: Spec URL: http://pobox.com/~tmz/fedora/gtkpod/gtkpod.spec SRPM URL: http://pobox.com/~tmz/fedora/gtkpod/gtkpod-0.99.8-2.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:51:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:51:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227631] Review Request: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130551.l1D5pMhd000637@bugzilla.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: autofs - A tool for automatically mounting and unmounting filesystems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227631 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ikent at redhat.com |orion at cora.nwra.com ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 00:51 EST ------- Well, for now please mark the reviewer as assignee for review request (not merge review) as before. There is some confusion currently and there are still under discussion as of who is the assignee. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:54:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:54:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225356] fonts-thai In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130554.l1D5sHEC000830@bugzilla.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: fonts-thai https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225356 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-13 00:53 EST ------- till date i have done many FE package reviews and first time i am going to review a package for fedora core. Kindly tell me if i need any thing to change/set here. Taking this package for official 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 Tue Feb 13 05:55:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:55:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130555.l1D5tYlT000928@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 00:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > X suggests the subsection needs attention > + is a positive comment > . is a specific comment about a problem > > X * package is named appropriately > - match upstream tarball or project name > + Tarball matches upstream > - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for > consistency > + Looks OK to me > - specfile should be %{name}.spec > + spec file matches %{name} > - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or > something) > + Correct. > - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > . The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > 0:1.0-0.b2.1jpp should comply to Fedora + JPackage exception guidelines: > 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1%{?dist} Fixed. > - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be > not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name > + Does not apply. > > * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? > - OSI-approved > - not a kernel module > - not shareware > - is it covered by patents? > - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator > - no binary firmware > + ASL is acceptable license, none of the other fields apply > > * license field matches the actual license. > + ASL 1.1 > * license is open source-compatible. > - use acronyms for licences where common > + Apache Software License is fine > * specfile name matches %{name} > + Correct. > * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on > how to generate the the source drop; ie. > # svn export blah/tag blah > # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah > + MD5 sum matches > > * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. > + Looks OK. > > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > This needs to be fixed > > X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > . Refer to the naming comment earlier > > * license text included in package and marked with %doc > + Correct. > > * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? > useless?) > + Seems OK. > > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > + Seems OK. > > X * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > W: ant-contrib non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: > "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", > "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", > "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", > "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", > "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", > "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", > "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", > "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System > Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System > Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User > Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". > > + This can be ignored since the group seems irrelevant > > W: ant-contrib class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/ant-contrib-1.0.jar > The META-INF/MANIFEST file in the jar contains a hardcoded Class-Path. > These entries do not work with older Java versions and even if they do work, > they are inflexible and usually cause nasty surprises. > Fixed in the patch file to comment out adding the jar file into the manifest file. > W: ant-contrib-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: > "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", > "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", > "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", > "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", > "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", > "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", > "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", > "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System > Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System > Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User > Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". > > W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > . Please apply the following: > https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html > Fixed, please let me know if I've done it correctly. :) > W: ant-contrib-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation > The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: > "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", > "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", > "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", > "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", > "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", > "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", > "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", > "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System > Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System > Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User > Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". > > W: ant-contrib-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/ant-contrib-1.0/tasks/foreach.html > This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or > modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed > correctly in some circumstances. > . Use sed to remove the offending characters in the %prep > Fixed in %prep > W: ant-contrib-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/ant-contrib-1.0/tasks/for.html > This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or > modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed > correctly in some circumstances. > Fixed in %prep > W: ant-contrib non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: > "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", > "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", > "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", > "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", > "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", > "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", > "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", > "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System > Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System > Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User > Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". > > W: ant-contrib mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 50) > The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a > cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. > Fixed > * changelog should be in one of these formats: > * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 > - And fix the link syntax. > > * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 > - And fix the link syntax. > > * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating > - 0.6-4 > - And fix the link syntax. > + Seems OK. > > * Packager tag should not be used > + Seems OK. > > X * Vendor and disribution tag should not be used > + Remove the above 2 tags > Done > * use License and not Copyright > + Correct. > > * Summary tag should not end in a period > + Correct. > * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) > + N/A > > X specfile is legible > - this is largely subjective; use your judgement > . Seems OK overall, please try and incorporate the suggestions for javadoc > handling mentioned earlier so the %post* sections for it can be removed. Done. > > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > > * BuildRequires are proper > - builds in mock will flush out problems here > + Local build on minimal machine works, will check on mock again when resubmitted > - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: > bash > bzip2 > coreutils > cpio > diffutils > fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) > gcc > gcc-c++ > gzip > make > patch > perl > redhat-rpm-config > rpm-build > sed > tar > unzip > which > * summary should be a short and concise description of the package > + Correct > * description expands upon summary (don't include installation > instructions) > + Correct > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > . The gcj_support line is massive (>80 chars) , try and reformat if possible Fixed. > * specfile written in American English > * make a -doc sub-package if necessary > - see > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b > * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible > * don't use rpath > * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) > * GUI apps should contain .desktop files > * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? > * use macros appropriately and consistently > - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS > + Correct > * don't use %makeinstall > * locale data handling correct (find_lang) > - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the > end of %install > * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps > * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines > + Correct > * package should probably not be relocatable > + It is not relocatable > * package contains code > - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent > - in general, there should be no offensive content > X * package should own all directories and files > + Since package is installing to %{_javadir} should add Requires(pre), > Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils but if the javadoc handling is fixed then a > simple requires is good enough > Require: jpackage-utils added > * there should be no %files duplicates > + Correct. > * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present > + Correct. > > * %clean should be present > + Correct. > > * %doc files should not affect runtime > + Seems OK. > > * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www > + Not a web app > X * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > . Add requires on java and jpackage-utils (Requires(x) if appropriate, see above) Added Requires for both java and jpackage-utils [pcheung at toque ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/SRPMS/ant-contr-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.src.rpm ant ant-junit jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 junit = 0:3.8.2 bcel = 0:5.1 java-gcj-compat-devel rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 [pcheung at toque ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm ant-contrib-1.0.jar.so ant-contrib = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1 [pcheung at toque ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh ant = 0:1.6.5 bcel = 0:5.1 java java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils junit = 0:3.8.2 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) libgcj.so.7 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung at toque ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-javadoc-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm ant-contrib-javadoc = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1 [pcheung at toque ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-javadoc-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung at toque ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-manual-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm ant-contrib-manual = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1 [pcheung at toque ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-manual-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung at toque ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm ant-contrib-1.0.jar.so.debug ant-contrib-debuginfo = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1 [pcheung at toque ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > X * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > . Above rpmlint output is for binary + srpm This is the current rpmlint output: W: ant-contrib non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: ant-contrib non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: ant-contrib-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: ant-contrib-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation > SHOULD: > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > + Correct. > * package should build on i386 > + Builds locally. > > * package should build in mock > Built in mock, and added ant, ant-junit as BRs > i can't find how to show what I've uploaded to pcheung.108.redhat.com, will let you know the location when i found out how. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:56:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:56:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228279] Review Request: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130556.l1D5uFFZ000975@bugzilla.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: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228279 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|caolanm at redhat.com |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 00:56 EST ------- Well, for now, until new review process makes clear, please mark the reviewer as assigner as before (not merge review). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:58:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:58:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228291] Review Request: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130558.l1D5wDIw001112@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228291 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|caolanm at redhat.com |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 05:58:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:58:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130558.l1D5wol1001152@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vivekl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 00:58 EST ------- Oops... forgot to cc Vivek. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 06:00:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:00:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130600.l1D60T46001226@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|caolanm at redhat.com |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 06:01:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:01:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225356] fonts-thai In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130601.l1D61Fr9001284@bugzilla.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: fonts-thai https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225356 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-13 01:00 EST ------- mockbuild failed. You need to create a patch to Makefile.am and replace following line mkfontdir -e /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/encodings; \ with mkfontdir -e /usr/share/X11/fonts/encodings; \ submit new package after adding 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 bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 06:39:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:39:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] 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=228450 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: zhu at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: SRPM URL: Description: Zhcon is a fast Linux Console Chinese System which supports framebuffer device.It can display Chinese, Japanese or Korean double byte characters.Supported language encodings include: GB2312, GBK, BIG5, JIS and KSC. It can also use input methods(table based) from M$ pwin98 and UCDOS for M$-DOG. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 06:48:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:48:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130648.l1D6mnUg003173@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: - |Using FrameBuffer -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 06:49:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:49:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130649.l1D6nhva003212@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 06:51:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:51:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130651.l1D6p6aU003320@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-13 01:51 EST ------- Thanks. :) Added package to CVSSyncNeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 07:53:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:53:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130753.l1D7r87Z006147@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-13 02:53 EST ------- lets be very very clear http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. right now.. this rule is broken... both packages own the directory. This is not allowed under the current packaging review guidance. It does not matter that the current depchains allow it. As a matter of policy this is broken behavior. This behavior is cleaned up by removing the ownership of the directory from one package and making it require the other. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 08:09:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:09:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130809.l1D89HBG006824@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 03:09 EST ------- Yes, so this "other packages" means "other packages required by this package", not "other packages not really required by this package". So having two directories owned by several packages is actually _allowed_ . The more important thing is that "every directories should be owned at any install option somehow". So this package does not need gnome-backgrounds, then this package _must_ own %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties. This is a _MUST_. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 08:14:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:14:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130814.l1D8ExFp007128@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 03:14 EST ------- Oops.. s|two directories|a directory| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 08:19:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:19:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130819.l1D8JZJH007312@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-13 03:19 EST ------- your interpretation completely disregards the rule-of-thumb example providing in the review guidance. It's an established policy, a policy which was re-affirmed in discussion at FUDCon among multiple reviewers and attendant members of the packaging committee. If you want to have a wider discussion of its interpretation, feel free to bring it up in the appropriate mailinglist. Having a running debate in this review ticket is counter-productive. If the maintainer feels there is a particular need to break this particular policy, that maintainer can provide a justification as per the review guidance. good day -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 08:28:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:28:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130828.l1D8SZvS007858@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 03:28 EST ------- No, this policy is not changed actually. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 08:29:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:29:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222594] Review Request: seedit: SELinux Policy Editor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130829.l1D8TZct007947@bugzilla.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: seedit: SELinux Policy Editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222594 ------- Additional Comments From ynakam at hitachisoft.jp 2007-02-13 03:29 EST ------- Thanks, fixed it now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 08:36:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:36:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130836.l1D8a5XP008366@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-13 03:36 EST ------- I cleanup up the spec file by removing the configure and makeinstall macro's. The ./configure and make install should do, but I am not sure about the various dirs on 64 bit the, %{_x11dir}/%{_lib} should reveal the x11 dir on 64 bit this is /usr/lib64/. The rpm's are the same. I hope the spec file is now working as it should work. spec url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-7.6.spec srpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.9.src.rpm debug url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-debuginfo-0.7.6_4-3.9.i386.rpm rpm url: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.6_4-3.9.i386.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 08:54:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:54:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130854.l1D8sKGl009940@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-13 03:54 EST ------- Using chcon in %install doesn't help because (a) file contexts aren't stored in RPM packages, and (b) rpm sets the file contexts based on the currently-running policy at package install time, which would override any file context set previously. The quick fix for this is to fix the file context in %post. The better fix for this is to request that /usr/lib(64)?/nemiver/plugins/dbgperspective/libdbgperspectiveplugin.so is set to context type textrel_shlib_t in the main selinux-policy package (request this on fedora-selinux-list or raise a bug on selinux-policy), so you don't need to adjust the context type in your own package. The bext fix is of course to get the underlying memory access fixed upstream as mentioned before. Hopefully they will have a clue what is going on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 08:56:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:56:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130856.l1D8uuoS010213@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 03:56 EST ------- I have reviewed this release (moto4lin-0.3-5) and all problems reported before seem fixed, except for one: the compile step does not take into account $RPM_OPT_FLAGS: qmake ignores the parameters included in the the spec file and uses only those included in the project bundled in the source, which in turn uses the default values from /usr/lib/qt-3.3/mkspecs/linux-g++/qmake.conf. Unfortunately this contradicts the packaging guidelines (wiki: Compiler flags). Neither the reporter not I have enough experience to solve this issues, therefore I kindly request for counseling from people more experienced. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:05:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:05:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130905.l1D955Vx011474@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-13 04:05 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18) > The better fix for this is to request that > /usr/lib(64)?/nemiver/plugins/dbgperspective/libdbgperspectiveplugin.so is set > to context type textrel_shlib_t in the main selinux-policy package (request this > on fedora-selinux-list or raise a bug on selinux-policy), so you don't need to > adjust the context type in your own package. +1 this is always preferable if .so really needs such context -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:05:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:05:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130905.l1D95mQT011552@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 04:05 EST ------- Again, * this package does not require gnome-backgrounds * Also my system does not have gnome-backgrounds Please read carefully the section "File and Directory Ownership" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines . http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines only shows the summary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:09:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130909.l1D99fYV012077@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|WONTFIX | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 04:09 EST ------- I think giving up this package is too early. Back to assigned. I will see if I can help for this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:12:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:12:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130912.l1D9CYaQ012404@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-13 04:12 EST ------- re: comment #5 'So having two directories owned by several packages is actually_allowed_' Mamoru, please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines again: - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. This means that each directory not listed in the FHS can have only one owner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:16:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:16:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228465] New: Review Request: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries 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=228465 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-cy.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-cy-0.20040425-1.src.rpm Description: Welsh hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:16:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:16:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130916.l1D9Gvs0013019@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 04:16 EST ------- make CXX="g++ $RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{_smp_mflags} all seems okay. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:19:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:19:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130919.l1D9J0EG013308@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 04:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly > in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. > > > This means that each directory not listed in the FHS can have only one owner. No, this means that there is no need to have an explicit dependency on filesystem even if filesystem owns some of the directories used by the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:20:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:20:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130920.l1D9KFfv013530@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 bnocera at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bnocera at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From bnocera at redhat.com 2007-02-13 04:20 EST ------- Would be my bug actually. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:21:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:21:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228468] New: Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries 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=228468 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-da.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-da-0.20050330-1.src.rpm Description: Danish hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:25:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:25:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130925.l1D9Pb5e014204@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-13 04:25 EST ------- okay... instead of having a sidebar conversation in a bug ticket... it is time to take this to the mailinglist for general discussion. Clearly there is a difference of opinion. How about we spare the poor package maintainer the bloody details of this, and move this to the fedora-extras-list for discussion. I sincerely invite Mamoru Tasaka to start a thread on fedora-extras-list concerning the matter. And I would encourage anyone with an opinion to participate in the mailinglist discussion. Doing a prolonged discussion in here, is counter-productive. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:27:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:27:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228469] New: Review Request: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries 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=228469 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-de.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-de-0.20051213-1.src.rpm Description: German hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:28:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:28:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130928.l1D9Sx10014680@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:29:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:29:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130929.l1D9Tacw014757@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 04:29 EST ------- Thank you, Mamoru, that was it. Jafo-redhat: please modify the spec to include Mamoru's suggestion and I will approve the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:30:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:30:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130930.l1D9UZCD014888@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 04:30 EST ------- I always check fedora-devel fedora-extras fedora-maintainers fedora-list fedora-packaging etc as much as I can. However always the discussion is held on midnight... (I live in Japan, EST + 14h) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:39:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:39:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228471] New: Review Request: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries 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=228471 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ee.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ee-0.20030602-1.src.rpm Description: Estonian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:40:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:40:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130940.l1D9evMF015832@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 04:40 EST ------- I brought up this issue here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00308.html there was no definitive answer. This issue is still open. In the review I do I insist that no directory should be owned and I let the packager the choice to own the directory or depend on the not-really needed package. Maybe this issue should be risen once again on another list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:43:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:43:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130943.l1D9h1uI016083@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-13 04:42 EST ------- aspell-0.60.5-3.fc7 is in development branch now - please Jef could you look at it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:47:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228472] New: Review Request: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries 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=228472 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-el.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-el-0.20041220-1.src.rpm Description: Greek hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:48:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:48:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130948.l1D9mFxr016616@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:48:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:48:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228465] Review Request: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702130948.l1D9mXco016667@bugzilla.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: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228465 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 04:48 EST ------- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 7095549a89b21a1952639902fa6dcae0ec6a4e16 cy_GB.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint outputsilent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just a 5K text file with the GPL license in Welsh and English - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 09:50:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:50:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228473] New: Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries 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=228473 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-es.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-es-0.20050510-1.src.rpm Description: Spanish hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:02:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:02:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228468] Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131002.l1DA2TUn018074@bugzilla.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: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228468 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 05:02 EST ------- This package does not include the most recent upstream version of the files and therefore the sha1sum of the included zip is not the same with the one from %Source0. Please update to the current version (06-Jan-2007) or explain why should the previous version be accepted (and how can it be verified) before continuing the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:03:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:03:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228475] New: Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries 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=228475 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-fr.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-fr-0.20060915-1.src.rpm Description: French hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:15:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:15:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131015.l1DAFrUQ018872@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Reporter Accessible|1 | CC Accessible|1 | Group|fedora_contrib | Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:16:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:16:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228476] New: Review Request: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries 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=228476 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ga.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ga-0.20060731-1.src.rpm Description: Irish hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:24:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:24:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228477] New: Review Request: hunspell-gl - Galician hunspell dictionaries 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=228477 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-gl - Galician hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-gl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-gl-0.20061002-1.src.rpm Description: Galician hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:26:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:26:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228469] Review Request: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131026.l1DAQPI7019752@bugzilla.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: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228469 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 05:26 EST ------- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 09beb35f8fd3753125535a920a1a001ce5b28fa8 de_DE-20051213.zip de75be0efe486a69a24f13ec33be5bb0357dc599 de_CH-20051213.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint outputsilent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just a 5K text file with the GPL license in Welsh and English - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED PS: Maybe you could also include the de_AT dictionary files ? They seem to be based roughly on the same word lists -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:27:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:27:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131027.l1DAR6GV019815@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-13 05:27 EST ------- Thanks. > SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file > should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Historically coreutils.spec has kept its translations in the specspo package, as other Core packages have done. What needs to happen now? > Spec file does not use macros for bin, sbin and what not throughout. I didn't see any missed bin/sbin macros (note that _bindir is /usr/bin, not /bin, and similarly for _sbindir), but the %pre scriptlet was missing _datadir and _infodir. New package tagged and built as 6.7-4.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:29:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:29:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228469] Review Request: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131029.l1DATpTo020011@bugzilla.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: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228469 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 05:29 EST ------- Of course there is no Welsh, but German involved. Sorry. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:30:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:30:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228478] New: Review Request: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries 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=228478 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-he.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-he-0.20050112-1.src.rpm Description: Hebrew hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:35:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:35:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228479] New: Review Request: hunspell-hr - Croatian hunspell dictionaries 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=228479 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-hr - Croatian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-hr.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-hr-0.20060607-1.src.rpm Description: Croatian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:44:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:44:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228468] Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131044.l1DAiEwG021488@bugzilla.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: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228468 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-13 05:44 EST ------- Indeed, new danish dictionaries available. Updated as http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-da-0.20070106-1.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-da.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:53:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228481] New: Review Request: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries 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=228481 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-hu.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-hu-0.20061105-1.src.rpm Description: Hungarian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 10:59:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 05:59:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228471] Review Request: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131059.l1DAxtCP023131@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228471 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 05:59 EST ------- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 4289cdd695eba079aceed471954f0adfc8059ffa et_EE.aff 712f4651ae2a82bea216cad78b144d182ad1c06f et_EE.dic - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 2 text files) - the license LGPL stated in the tag is the same as upstream's web site (http://www.meso.ee/~jjpp/speller/,Litsents ) says; the actual license is not included in the final rpm because upstream does not supply an actual "release" but just the two dictionary files - there are only 2 files (word lists) so no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent on src.rpm; binary gives the following warning: W: hunspell-ee no-documentation which is consistent with the fact that there is nothing in the rpm but the two dictionary files - code, not content - no need for .desktop file APPROVED Obs: please bug upstream to include the LGPL license in case they release the dictionary as a single file (tar/zip/whatever); it would also be a good idea if their dict files would be available at http://ftp.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/contrib/dictionaries/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 11:09:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:09:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228483] New: Review Request: hunspell-it - Italian hunspell dictionaries 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=228483 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-it - Italian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-it.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-it-2.3-0.1.20060723.src.rpm Description: Italian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 11:15:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:15:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228484] New: Review Request: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries 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=228484 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-lt.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-lt-1.1-1.20061127cvs.src.rpm Description: Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 11:33:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:33:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228488] New: Review Request: hunspell-ms - Malay hunspell dictionaries 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=228488 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ms - Malay hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ms.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ms-0.20050117-1.src.rpm Description: Malay hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 11:36:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:36:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228468] Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131136.l1DBaVqM025564@bugzilla.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: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228468 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 06:36 EST ------- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 75bc7fbcbb9736cc4615bf19a5d74001e8c468ac da_DK.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the one included in the upstream archive - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint outputsilent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just the GPL license + usage instructions - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 11:38:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:38:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228489] New: Review Request: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries 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=228489 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nb.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nb-0.20050315-1.src.rpm Description: Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 11:42:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:42:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228490] New: Review Request: hunspell-nl - Dutch hunspell dictionaries 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=228490 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-nl - Dutch hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nl-0.20050617-1.src.rpm Description: Dutch hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 11:44:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:44:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131144.l1DBiXdM025989@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-13 06:44 EST ------- You need to add ncurses-devel in BuildRequires also add disttag ,correct buildroot mock build is failing with chmod 4755 /usr/bin/zhcon chmod: cannot access '/usr/bin/zhcon': No such file or directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 11:50:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:50:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228492] New: Review Request: hunspell-nn - Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries 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=228492 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-nn - Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nn.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nn-0.20050112-1.src.rpm Description: Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 11:53:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:53:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131153.l1DBrXca026430@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 karsten at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-13 06:53 EST ------- all except suggestions 2 and 4 fixed in tn5250-0.17.3-8.fc7 - failed scripts often lead to duplicate packages in the rpmdb, I'd like to avoid that - %patch -b can lead to rpms containing backup files if you aren't careful. It happened in the past and will happen again. I'd suggest the opposite: remove all -b flags and add them only when you need them for gendiff. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 11:55:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:55:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228493] New: Review Request: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries 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=228493 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-pl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-pl-0.20060823-1.src.rpm Description: Polish hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:04:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:04:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228495] New: Review Request: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries 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=228495 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-pt.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-pt-0.20061026-1.src.rpm Description: Portuguese hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:09:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:09:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228496] New: Review Request: hunspell-ru - Russian hunspell dictionaries 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=228496 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-ru - Russian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ru.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-ru-0.20040406-1.src.rpm Description: Russian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:13:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:13:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228497] New: Review Request: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries 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=228497 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sk.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sk-0.20050228-1.src.rpm Description: Slovak hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:16:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131216.l1DCGnm6027768@bugzilla.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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-13 07:16 EST ------- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdenetwork.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.testing/kdenetwork-3.5.6-1.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter 7:3.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 * Tue Jan 09 2007 Rex Dieter 7:3.5.5-5 - ksirc DOS (http://www.kde.org/info/security/advisory-20070109-1.txt) * Wed Nov 01 2006 Rex Dieter 7:3.5.5-4 - BR: meanwhile-devel * Wed Nov 01 2006 Rex Dieter 7:3.5.5-3 - respin ICQ patch (kde#136566c#37) * Wed Nov 01 2006 Rex Dieter 7:3.5.5-2 - ICQ patch (kde#136566, rh#213341) * Wed Oct 11 2006 Rex Dieter 7:3.5.5-1 - 3.5.5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:17:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:17:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228499] New: Review Request: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries 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=228499 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sl.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sl-0.20021008-1.src.rpm Description: Slovenian hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:19:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:19:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195485] Review Request: kdegraphics: K Desktop Environment - Graphics Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131219.l1DCJHFh027938@bugzilla.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: kdegraphics: K Desktop Environment - Graphics Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195485 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-13 07:19 EST ------- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdegraphics.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdegraphics-3.5.6-1.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter 7:3.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 * Thu Dec 07 2006 Rex Dieter 7:3.5.5-4 - BR: poppler-qt-devel * Tue Nov 28 2006 Rex Dieter 7:3.5.5-3 - %%post(un): /sbin/ldconfig * Thu Nov 01 2006 Rex Dieter 7:3.5.5-2 - post-3.5.5-kdegraphics.diff -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:21:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:21:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 194373] Review Request: kdeedu: Educational/Edutainment applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131221.l1DCLM5t028057@bugzilla.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: kdeedu: Educational/Edutainment applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194373 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-13 07:21 EST ------- > If it's not required anymore nope. (: Update (for posterity): Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdeedu.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdeedu-3.5.6-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:22:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:22:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 194280] Review Request: kdebindings: KDE/DCOP bindings to non-C++ languages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131222.l1DCMNdc028112@bugzilla.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: kdebindings: KDE/DCOP bindings to non-C++ languages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194280 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-13 07:22 EST ------- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdebindings.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdebindings-3.5.6-1.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter 3.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 * Thu Oct 05 2006 Rex Dieter 3.5.5-1 - 3.5.5 * Tue Jul 25 2006 Rex Dieter 3.5.4-1 - kde-3.5.4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:22:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:22:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228500] New: Review Request: hunspell-sv - Swedish hunspell dictionaries 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=228500 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-sv - Swedish hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sv.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sv-1.3.8.6-1.src.rpm Description: Swedish hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:26:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:26:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228501] New: Review Request: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries 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=228501 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-th.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-th-0.20050530-1.src.rpm Description: Thai hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:30:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:30:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228503] New: Review Request: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries 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=228503 Summary: Review Request: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: caolanm at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-zu.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-zu-0.20060120-1.src.rpm Description: Zulu hunspell dictionaries Similar to 227811 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:30:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 200236] Review Request: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131230.l1DCUvJc028553@bugzilla.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: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200236 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-13 07:30 EST ------- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdeaddons.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdeaddons-3.5.6-2.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Jan 25 2007 Rex Dieter 3.5.6-2 - upstream privacy patch * Tue Jan 16 2007 Rex Dieter 3.5.6-1 - kde-3.5.6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:31:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:31:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228503] Review Request: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131231.l1DCVIgZ028565@bugzilla.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: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228503 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-13 07:31 EST ------- last one, phew! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:36:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:36:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131236.l1DCaBrj028723@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 07:35 EST ------- * in %files, there is no need of * for odbc, so %{_libdir}/%{name}/liblodbc.so* should be replaced with %{_libdir}/%{name}/liblodbc.so * no need to duplicate the documentation in all the subpackages. LICENSE NEWS ChangeLog README could be only in the main package. * HOWTO-RELEASE isn't usefull in the fedora package * The following is useless and should be removed: %post tcl -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun tcl -p /sbin/ldconfig * there is a license issue for vpflib. In LICENSE, there is: vpflib/*: No license mentioned, public domain? However some files in vpflib have an author, which means a copyright owner. Without license they are under the default license which is a restrictive license (no redistribution, no modification). * there is also a license issue for ogdi/c-api/gmath.c: ogdi/c-api/gmath.c is: Derived from Numerical methods in C Looking at this book it seems that the codes are under a proprietary license. Suggestions: * The timestamps of source file aren't the same that those spectool -g gets (but otherwise source match upstream) * use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:40:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131240.l1DCew25029004@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 07:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > all except suggestions 2 and 4 fixed in tn5250-0.17.3-8.fc7 > - failed scripts often lead to duplicate packages in the rpmdb, I'd like to > avoid that You are right, and I agree with you. I didn't targeted the rm -f in scriptlets, but in %install: rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/lib5250.la > - %patch -b can lead to rpms containing backup files if you aren't careful. It > happened in the past and will happen again. > I'd suggest the opposite: remove all -b flags and add them only when you need > them for gendiff. Ok, as you like. I haven't seen the changes, so I guess it takes time for changes in internal cvs to propagate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:51:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:51:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131251.l1DCpuAe030119@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 07:51 EST ------- Well I will want to check by tomorrow (in Japan: EST +14)... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:53:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:53:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131253.l1DCrpla030314@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 07:53 EST ------- I hope I can check this by tomorrow... may take a bit long.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 12:59:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:59:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228472] Review Request: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131259.l1DCx90S030705@bugzilla.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: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228472 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 07:58 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum f2277588f698658b7d4c5ce0aa2e7b9e399feedd el_GR.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the one included in the source, and is included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just the GPL license - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 13:10:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:10:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131310.l1DDAi2t031380@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-13 08:10 EST ------- (In reply to comment #33) > * in %files, there is no need of * for odbc, so > %{_libdir}/%{name}/liblodbc.so* > should be replaced with > %{_libdir}/%{name}/liblodbc.so fixed. > > * no need to duplicate the documentation in all the subpackages. > LICENSE NEWS ChangeLog README > could be only in the main package. fixed, leaved only README in the odbc/tcl package (at last need something). > * HOWTO-RELEASE isn't usefull in the fedora package get rid > * The following is useless and should be removed: > %post tcl -p /sbin/ldconfig > %postun tcl -p /sbin/ldconfig oh yes. Those are now private libs. > * there is a license issue for vpflib. In LICENSE, there is: > > vpflib/*: > > No license mentioned, public domain? > > > > However some files in vpflib have an author, which means a copyright > owner. Without license they are under the default license which is > a restrictive license (no redistribution, no modification). > > * there is also a license issue for ogdi/c-api/gmath.c: > > ogdi/c-api/gmath.c is: > Derived from Numerical methods in C > > Looking at this book it seems that the codes are under a proprietary > license. > * there is a license issue for vpflib. In LICENSE, there is: >vpflib/*: >No license mentioned, public domain? >However some files in vpflib have an author, which means a copyright >owner. Without license they are under the default license which is >a restrictive license (no redistribution, no modification). I try contact tham and sort this out. >* there is also a license issue for ogdi/c-api/gmath.c: >ogdi/c-api/gmath.c is: > Derived from Numerical methods in C Is this insuficcient (from .c header): Looking at this book it seems that the codes are under a proprietary ****************************************************************************** * Derived from Numerical methods in C. * * Copyright (C) 1995 Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques (L.A.S.) Inc * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and * its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies, that * both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in * supporting documentation, and that the name of L.A.S. Inc not be used * in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software * without specific, written prior permission. L.A.S. Inc. makes no * representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. * It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. ****************************************************************************** > > Suggestions: > > * The timestamps of source file aren't the same that those > spectool -g gets (but otherwise source match upstream) > * use > %defattr(-,root,root,-) > instead of > %defattr(-,root,root) fixed. -2 updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 13:20:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:20:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131320.l1DDKAwq031827@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 tla at rasmil.dk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tla at rasmil.dk Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk 2007-02-13 08:20 EST ------- This is my first review so maybe somebody should take a extra look at my review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 13:23:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:23:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131323.l1DDNRF0032035@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 ------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk 2007-02-13 08:23 EST ------- Must : OK - spec filename is %{name}.spec OK - source match upstream md5sum CVS: 6e6953f92531aa0f9074199f2925d22a yum-3.1.1.tar.gz Upstream : 6e6953f92531aa0f9074199f2925d22a yum-3.1.1.tar.gz OK - Package naming OK - Spec in American English and legible OK - License : GPL OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - License file (COPYING) is included in %doc - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. FAIL - Buildroot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Comments: * Source0 should end with %{name}-%{version}, not yum-%{version} * Requires: python (Upstream spec has Requires: python >= 2.4) * Requires: rpm >= 0:4.1.1 ( Upstream spec has Requires: rpm >= 0:4.4.2) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 13:27:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:27:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131327.l1DDROW3032207@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 08:27 EST ------- (In reply to comment #34) > fixed, leaved only README in the odbc/tcl package (at last need something). If there is nothing specific for these sub-packages, the right thing is not to have any documentation. There will be a rpmling warning but it can be ignored. > Is this insuficcient (from .c header): Yes, it is insufficient since it covers only the new code. > Looking at this book it seems that the codes are under a proprietary > ****************************************************************************** > * Derived from Numerical methods in C. > * > * Copyright (C) 1995 Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques (L.A.S.) Inc > * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and > * its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, > * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies, that > * both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in > * supporting documentation, and that the name of L.A.S. Inc not be used > * in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software > * without specific, written prior permission. L.A.S. Inc. makes no > * representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. > * It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. > > ****************************************************************************** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 13:49:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:49:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131349.l1DDnJQ7000957@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 08:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #34) > Looking at this book it seems that the codes are under a proprietary > ****************************************************************************** > * Derived from Numerical methods in C. > * > * Copyright (C) 1995 Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques (L.A.S.) Inc > * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and > * its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, > * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies, that > * both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in > * supporting documentation, and that the name of L.A.S. Inc not be used > * in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software > * without specific, written prior permission. L.A.S. Inc. makes no > * representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. > * It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. > > ****************************************************************************** This is "Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License" and GNU says this is "permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 13:53:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:53:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131353.l1DDrPQj001364@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-13 08:53 EST ------- I've added something to nxml-init.el that I hope will resolve this. http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/nxml-mode/emacs-nxml-mode.spec http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/nxml-mode/emacs-nxml-mode-0.20041004.1-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 13:53:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:53:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131353.l1DDriXb001406@bugzilla.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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-13 08:53 EST ------- Thanks for the feedback! New build: Spec URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/amarokFS.spec SRPM URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/amarokFS-0.4.2-2.src.rpm Changes: - Added BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils - Fixed source URLs - Removed "Application" from .desktop file's "Categories" tag - Install application icon to correct location - Added KDE/GTK icon cache update scriptlets - Cleaned up the application's qmake file a bit (In reply to comment #1) > Needs work: > * QT environment variable are not sourced I am not following you here - the package is being built using qmake; AFAIK the "CONFIG += qt" line in the qmake project file takes care of this? I have cleaned up the .pro file accordingly to make it more clear, though. > * The package should contain the text of the license, please ask the author to > include it in the tarball. It's not a blocker for the package, but it would be > better. I agree. The developer seems to be away on holiday at the moment, but I will mail him about this; I also plan on submitting some of the patches/bugfixes I added to this application once the package is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 13:59:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:59:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228473] Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131359.l1DDxN7R001856@bugzilla.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: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228473 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 08:59 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 3801efb6d6252e40a743a913afc4f86bb8d3a3ef es_ES.zip 4cc6bd6f5985d876f6d1bb565051b8131ddb82e4 es_MX.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only text files) - the license LGPL stated in the tag is the same as the one included in the source and is included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc are just the LGPL licenses (localised for Spain and Mexico) - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED PS: You could also add support for es_BZ (Belize), es_CU (Cuba), es_GU (Guatemala) Please bug upstream to update the corresponding Readme files on http://ftp.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/contrib/dictionaries/, over there the license is stated to be GPL and not LGPL as the ones included in the zip files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:05:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:05:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131405.l1DE5pkn002492@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-13 09:05 EST ------- ****************************************************************************** > > * Derived from Numerical methods in C. > > * > > * Copyright (C) 1995 Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques (L.A.S.) Inc > > * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and > > * its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, > > * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies, that > > * both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear in > > * supporting documentation, and that the name of L.A.S. Inc not be used > > * in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software > > * without specific, written prior permission. L.A.S. Inc. makes no > > * representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose. > > * It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. > > > > ****************************************************************************** > > This is "Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License" and > GNU says this is "permissive non-copyleft free software license, > compatible with the GNU GPL" So to understand this part is basicaly OK ? Regarding vrf i called the author to help sort out issue, i waiting for his response. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:06:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:06:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131406.l1DE6U1h002557@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 ------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk 2007-02-13 09:06 EST ------- rpmlinst output: [tim at naboo devel]$ rpmlint yum-3.1.1-1.src.rpm W: yum prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig W: yum prereq-use /sbin/service E: yum hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/yum-plugins E: yum hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/yum-plugins/installonlyn.py E: yum hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yum-plugins E: yum hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/yum-plugins/* I am sure what the prereq warning means. the hardcoded library error should be ignored i think, because the plugins has to go into /usr/lib/yum-plugins/ always, even on 64 bit systems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:08:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:08:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131408.l1DE8i4E002789@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-13 09:08 EST ------- Everything looks good now, so package is APPROVED. And let the printable docs problem remain open for some volunteer :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:09:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:09:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228475] Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131409.l1DE9XiB002880@bugzilla.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: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228475 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |lxtnow at gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:09:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:09:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131409.l1DE9jav002910@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-13 09:09 EST ------- > If there is nothing specific for these sub-packages, the right thing is > not to have any documentation. There will be a rpmling warning but it > can be ignored. Ah, ok :-) In this case i removed. Updated to -3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:10:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:10:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131410.l1DEAumr003022@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-13 09:10 EST ------- And Karel, you could close bug #223686 as it is fixed now too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:14:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:14:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131414.l1DEE9Nv003336@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 09:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #37) > > > This is "Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License" and > > GNU says this is "permissive non-copyleft free software license, > > compatible with the GNU GPL" Indeed, but it doesn't cover the original code which is from a book. > So to understand this part is basicaly OK ? No, I think it is not OK. See also in the C file the comment. It is said that the code is: Derived from Numerical methods in C but it seems to me that this is illegal given the license of Numerical methods in C. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:15:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:15:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131415.l1DEFNp2003488@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 ------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk 2007-02-13 09:15 EST ------- [tim at naboo devel]$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/yum-3.1.1-1.noarch.rpm E: yum only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: yum conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/logrotate.d/yum E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/packages.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/depsolve.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/Errors.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/rpmUtils/arch.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-cli/progress_meter.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/storagefactory.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-cli/yumupd.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/__init__.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-cli/yummain.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-cli/utils.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-cli/output.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/config.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-cli/callback.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/rpmUtils/transaction.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-cli/i18n.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/rpmUtils/__init__.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/rpmUtils/updates.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/rpmUtils/oldUtils.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/packageSack.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/rpmUtils/miscutils.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/sqlitecache.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/rpmsack.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-cli/yumcommands.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/repoMDObject.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/sqlutils.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/update_md.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/repos.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-cli/cli.py 0644 E: yum non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/yum/failover.py 0644 only-non-binary-in-usr-lib is ok, because the yum-plugins has to go into /usr/lib/yum-plugins. yum non-executable-script is ok too, the .py files is not called directly, so they dont need to be executables, could be fixed in the upstream Makefile's to use 755 insted of 644 for the .py files. conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/logrotate.d/yum has to be checked, should it be overwriten every time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:21:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:21:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131421.l1DELjUo004202@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 tla at rasmil.dk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tla at rasmil.dk |katzj at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk 2007-02-13 09:21 EST ------- Summery: * Buildroot should be fixed. * The rpm and version should match the ones in upstream spec. * The 'prereq' warning should be checked out. * the 'conffile-without-noreplace-flag' warning should be investigated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:22:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:22:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131422.l1DEMZaH004336@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-13 09:22 EST ------- > > > This is "Standard ML of New Jersey Copyright License" and > > > GNU says this is "permissive non-copyleft free software license, > > > compatible with the GNU GPL" > > Indeed, but it doesn't cover the original code which is from a book. > > > So to understand this part is basicaly OK ? > > No, I think it is not OK. See also in the C file the comment. It is > said that the code is: > > Derived from Numerical methods in C > > but it seems to me that this is illegal given the license of > Numerical methods in C. Hmm, have idea how to sort out ? I have no idea :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:25:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:25:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131425.l1DEPr28004607@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 09:25 EST ------- (In reply to comment #40) > Hmm, have idea how to sort out ? > I have no idea :-( Ask upstream for clarification? This kind of issue is certainly best solved by upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:27:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:27:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228476] Review Request: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131427.l1DERiqa004793@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228476 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 09:27 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 78b27d555364e714d53cb1aa2d8a4ae4200a15ee ga_IE.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says and is included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + license, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just the GPL license - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:29:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:29:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131429.l1DETmFj004944@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 rvokal at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From rvokal at redhat.com 2007-02-13 09:29 EST ------- Add upstream source. I have no idea when the checkout was made either which tag. I would like to keep the source file as it is. W: nc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/nc-1.84/scripts/alta /bin/sh - these are only warnings and I'm not going to change it. The directory contains test scripts, examples which are obviously part of documentation and it's correct that they are executable. See changes in 1.84-11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:34:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:34:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131434.l1DEYXhu005249@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-13 09:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #41) > (In reply to comment #40) > > > Hmm, have idea how to sort out ? > > I have no idea :-( > > Ask upstream for clarification? This kind of issue is certainly > best solved by upstream. Looks on google there are some projects that use same looking code under GPL http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=copy_dmatrix&hl=en&btnG=Search+Code What do you think ? Should i replace with this with pices from other GPL project ? Are those legal ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:38:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:38:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131438.l1DEcm8E005687@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 09:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #42) > Looks on google there are some projects that use same looking code under GPL > http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=copy_dmatrix&hl=en&btnG=Search+Code > > What do you think ? > Should i replace with this with pices from other GPL project ? I don't think so, since ogdi is basically BSD. The replacements should either be BSD-like or public domain. > Are those legal ? It depends on the precise case. It is legal to reimplement the same interface, not to reuse the code under another license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:39:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131439.l1DEdrS2005791@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-13 09:39 EST ------- The full review is here and see the output of rpmlint at the end OK source files match upstream: 740d8b17463002c5bb3915841eb9abf936377c50375b410cb5d0640900ede8f3 mc-2007-01-24-03.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires looks sane OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK? file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. BAD rpmlint is not silent. I: mc-debuginfo checking I: mc checking W: mc incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.6.1a-42 1:4.6.1a-42.20070124cvs.fc7 minor :-) W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/cedit.menu W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/edit.indent.rc W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/edit.spell.rc W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/extfs/extfs.ini W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/extfs/sfs.ini W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.charsets W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.ext W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.lib W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.menu W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/syntax/Syntax at least mc.ext, mc.menu should be "noreplace", maybe all W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/mc.csh W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/mc.sh E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc-wrapper.sh E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc-wrapper.csh E: mc executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/mc.sh E: mc executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/mc.sh 0755 E: mc non-executable-script /etc/mc/edit.spell.rc 0644 E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc.sh E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc.csh E: mc non-standard-uid /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver vcsa E: mc setuid-binary /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver vcsa 04711 E: mc non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver 04711 E: mc non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver 04711 E: mc executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/mc.csh E: mc executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/mc.csh 0755 E: mc non-executable-script /etc/mc/edit.indent.rc 0644 Can you give some explanation for the issues above? I don't think they are real blockers, but would like to read your opinion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:44:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:44:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131444.l1DEiI4L006236@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-13 09:44 EST ------- Well, I have not yet checked the code of ogdi actually (sorry I will be busy for today and tommorrow), however including numerical recipe C code seems a problem. >From http://www.numerical-recipes.com/infotop.html#distinfo --------------------------------------------------------- # You want to distribute, noncommercially and free on the internet, an application that uses NR routines. You need to distribute source code, so that your application can be recompiled on different machines. Can you include Numerical Recipes routines as part of that source code, including a notice that they are only allowed to be used with your application? * Sorry, no. We never give permission for Numerical Recipes source code to be posted on any public server, or distributed with any freeware or shareware package. If you encounter such a distribution, we'd be grateful if you'd tell us about it. There are good freely redistributable numerical libraries on Netlib that can be used, instead of Numerical Recipes, in such cases. The Numerical Recipes Multi-Language Code CDROM includes the entire freely redistributable SLATEC library, for this kind of use. -------------------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:44:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:44:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131444.l1DEiJq3006243@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 09:44 EST ------- There is still a missing Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig The Application; and X-Red-Hat-Base categories shouldn't be added, in my opinion. And the Network category would better be in the .desktop file instead of added in the spec file. In the xt5250.desktop file there shouldn't be any Mimetype entry. If I recall well the guidelines, --vendor should be fedora. The autotools are rerun during the build, certainly because the patching of autotool files makes some files newer that generated files. You can fix that by touching generated files, or by keeping the original timestamps when patching (that can be achieved with cp -p and touch -r). I think it would be better if tn5250-48x48.{png,xpm} were called tn5250.{png,xpm} in /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/, and tn5250-62x48.{png,xpm} were put in /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps and also called tn5250.{png,xpm}. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:44:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:44:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228473] Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131444.l1DEie6O006298@bugzilla.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: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228473 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-13 09:44 EST ------- Guatemala is es_GT I believe not es_GU and es_GT is one of the aliases already es_BZ, es_CU and es_GU don't appear in locale -a | grep es_ and they don't appear in the drop down of spanish languages in openoffice.org's format->character->font->language -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:49:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:49:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226667] Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131449.l1DEnUHn006651@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226667 tla at rasmil.dk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tla at rasmil.dk Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk 2007-02-13 09:49 EST ------- Starting review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:50:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:50:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226667] Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131450.l1DEogGm006867@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226667 tla at rasmil.dk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|tla at rasmil.dk |katzj at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk 2007-02-13 09:50 EST ------- OK - spec filename is %{name}.spec OK - source match upstream md5sum 8cc782b0a6fbca137b133fe6294ce000 yum-metadata-parser-1.0.3.tar.gz OK - Package naming OK - Spec in American English and legible OK - License : GPL OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - License file (COPYING) is included in %doc OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Buildroot is %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK - Package is compiling and building on i386. Comments: * No Licens file in upstream source. rpmlint: [tim at naboo devel]$ rpmlint yum-metadata-parser-1.0.3-1.src.rpm E: yum-metadata-parser no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install [tim at naboo i386]$ rpmlint yum-metadata-parser-1.0.3-1.i386.rpm silent Summery: * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should be added to %install -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:52:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:52:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131452.l1DEq0tq007093@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 09:51 EST ------- It doesn't seems to be the same book, but the redistributions conditions are the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 14:58:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:58:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131458.l1DEw45v007734@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com CC|vivekl at redhat.com | Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 09:58 EST ------- spec file and srpm can be found at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/servlets/ProjectDocumentList?folderID=76&expandFolder=76&folderID=0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:00:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:00:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131500.l1DF0BSl008073@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 09:59 EST ------- Found the spec and srpm at: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/servlets/ProjectDocumentList?folderID=74&expandFolder=74&folderID=0 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:03:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:03:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131503.l1DF39mf008637@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-13 10:03 EST ------- >I didn't see any missed bin/sbin macros (note that _bindir is /usr/bin, not /bin, and similarly for _sbindir), but the %pre scriptlet was missing _datadir and _infodir. My fault. I was thinking that bindir was /bin and not /usr/bin. Sorry. Looks good. I would mark is as complete, but this is my first review, and I am still learning. I will have somebody else confirm everything is correct and mark it complete. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:04:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:04:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131504.l1DF4xf0008885@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:04 EST ------- >From a conversation with author: > vpflib was written by ESRI (www.esri.com) for the department of defence. (those guys with guns and tanks ! *just joking* ) > I believe we will need to dig up a public software release from DOD > (I can't quite remember the package that includes vpflib) to confirm > that it is completely in the public domain including vpflib. I will look forward over this issues. Will try my best to escaladate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:06:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:06:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226354] Merge Review: radvd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131506.l1DF6axB009070@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: radvd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226354 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jima at beer.tclug.org Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-13 10:06 EST ------- Picking up for review... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:07:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:07:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228473] Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131507.l1DF76ZN009117@bugzilla.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: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228473 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 10:06 EST ------- All those I have mentioned are listed as such at http://ftp.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/contrib/dictionaries/README_es_ES.txt, under "Los siguientes son disponibles:" (The following are available) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:16:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:16:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131516.l1DFGFq8010220@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-13 10:16 EST ------- First shots: - a dot is used at the end of the Summary lines - not using suggested BuildRoot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - using %makeinstall, I think %make install should work (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002) - static library is packaged -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:17:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:17:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228473] Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131517.l1DFHSoA010459@bugzilla.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: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228473 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:17 EST ------- Interesting, I'd say the GU is a typo, unless it's an older unofficial locale replaced with GT. The other ones don't *seem* to be official locales yet, so aren't in glibc or OOo. I think I'll leave them out, easier to add them later in than have to pull them for conflicting with a future allocated locale. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:19:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:19:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131519.l1DFJBRl010573@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > MUST: > > X correct buildroot > > - should be: > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > Fixed. > Great. > > * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > > W: objectweb-anttask non-standard-group Development/Java > > This warning can be ignored. > > > W: objectweb-anttask unversioned-explicit-provides owanttask > > Fixed. > The provides should be (without <): Provides: owanttask = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} > > W: objectweb-anttask rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > Fixed. Great. > > > W: objectweb-anttask mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 37) > > Fixed. > Great > > X Vendor tag should not be used > > Fixed. > > > X specfile is legible > > - Requires jpackage-utils in post and postun javadoc > > Fixed. > > > - Get rid of Vendor and Distribution > > Fixed. > > > - Fix Release tag > > Fixed. > > > - Fix Source0: > > http://download.fr2.forge.objectweb.org/monolog/ow_util_ant_tasks_1.3.2.zip > > Fixed. > > > - When adding the gcj bits, BuildArch: noarch should be removed > > > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > > line 80 is longer than 80 characters > > Fixed. > Since with_bootstrap option is added, you'll need to define a value for the variable. I'll check the following when the spec file is updated, and rpms rebuilt from that spec file. > > * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > > W: objectweb-anttask non-standard-group Development/Java > > Ignoring this warning. > > > W: objectweb-anttask incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.3.2-2jpp 0:1.3.2-1jpp > > Fixed. > > > W: objectweb-anttask no-documentation > > Fixed. > > > W: objectweb-anttask-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > Fixed. > > i> W: objectweb-anttask-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > > Fixed. > > > W: objectweb-anttask-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > > Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:26:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:26:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228477] Review Request: hunspell-gl - Galician hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131526.l1DFQ8U3011454@bugzilla.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: hunspell-gl - Galician hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228477 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 10:25 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 1b15cf97b46af275ff4cf8372b065589ccd1adb3 gl_ES.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says and is included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just the GPL license - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:30:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:30:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227034] Review Request: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131530.l1DFURl2011811@bugzilla.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: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227034 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:31:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:31:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227112] Review Request: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131531.l1DFVR3x011938@bugzilla.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: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227112 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:31 EST ------- I changed the use of dos2unix to sed -i 's/\r//g'. Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/relaxngDatatype.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:32:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:32:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131532.l1DFWOPk011986@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 ------- Additional Comments From bnocera at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:32 EST ------- Should be fixed in 1.1.3-2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:41:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:41:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131541.l1DFfck8013046@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 ------- Additional Comments From jbowes at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Summery: > * Buildroot should be fixed. > * The rpm and version should match the ones in upstream spec. > * The 'prereq' warning should be checked out. > * the 'conffile-without-noreplace-flag' warning should be investigated. I fixed up the buildroot, rpm and python versions, and the noreplace config file. I also used the name macro in source0. prereq should be ok, since we do want to have yum-updatesd running by default. The new version is yum-3.1.1-2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:45:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:45:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225777] Merge Review: gawk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131545.l1DFjpLI013513@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gawk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225777 Bug 225777 depends on bug 223686, which changed state. Bug 223686 Summary: gawk: non-failsafe install-info use in scriptlets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223686 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:49:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:49:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227117] Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131549.l1DFngqA014051@bugzilla.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: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > I'm still getting this on the srpm: > W: tagsoup mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 54) (this is > on the gcj requires) Oops, fixed... > and this on the binary rpm: > W: tagsoup incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.0.1-1jpp.1.fc7 0:1.0.1-1jpp.1 > > Buildroot should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n > (-root missing) > Thanks > Also, since gcj support is added, we need to have %define _with_gcj_support 1. > Fixed. The updated package is available at the same URL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:50:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:50:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] Review Request: gnu-trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131550.l1DFoi01014141@bugzilla.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: gnu-trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 fnasser at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: gnu.trove- |Review Request: gnu-trove- |1.0.2-4jpp - High |1.0.2-4jpp - High |performance collections for |performance collections for |Java |Java ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:50 EST ------- Updated the subject line so we find it if we ever go looking for gnu-trove (with the '-'). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:51:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:51:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227061] Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131551.l1DFpcnq014196@bugzilla.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: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > - License file is not present in the rpm, it should be, and marked %doc The package doesn't contain its licence. I don't think we should be adding it. > - javadoc directory should be marked %doc Fixed. > - Line 5 in %install is > 80 characters Fixed. Updated SRPM, spec, and binary RPMs: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax.spec http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.noarch.rpm http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/isorelax-javadoc-0-0.1.release20050331.1jpp.1.noarch.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:52:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:52:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226667] Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131552.l1DFqaYp014359@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226667 jbowes at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jbowes at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:52 EST ------- I added removing the buildroot the %install, in y-m-p-1.0.3-2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:52:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:52:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227112] Review Request: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131552.l1DFqnuN014406@bugzilla.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: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227112 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:52 EST ------- Binary RPMs uploaded as well: http://overholt.ca/fedora/relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm http://overholt.ca/fedora/relaxngDatatype-javadoc-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:52:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131552.l1DFqj3V014394@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 jbowes at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:56:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:56:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228478] Review Request: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131556.l1DFuKVJ014759@bugzilla.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: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228478 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 10:56 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 3214278f18109a350cdd765b8c43b1f6a8163e20 he_IL.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says; upstream does not really include the license but just a notice claiming that the dictionary is licensed as GPL - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is a 10 lines text file - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED SHOULD: upstream should be requested to include the license in the archive -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 15:59:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227064] Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131559.l1DFxfrC015203@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227064 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-13 10:59 EST ------- Fixed spec and srpm are here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/jakarta-commons-io/ - Release tag was updated - Development/Libraries/Java is okay for the group because this is a library - Only line >80 chars now is a url, which I didn't want to breakdown - Javadoc package/ownerships for it fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:04:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:04:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131604.l1DG44vM015817@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > The spec that is attached still has the double Requires/missing BR problem. Verified. One problem I see is that I don't think its release is proper. I'm under the impression that it should be of the form: 0.Z.tag.Xjpp.Y%{?dist} I don't see a Z in this case. > E: jtidy tag-not-utf8 %changelog > E: jtidy non-utf8-spec-file jtidy.spec Verified. > X BuildRoot incorrect. Should be: > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) I think this should be fixed regardless of the current discussion. The *current* review guidelines specify the buildroot so please use it. > X remove "section free" Verified. > X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 I still get lots of: 7. ERROR in /home/andrew/rpmbuild/BUILD/jtidy-04aug2000r7-dev/src/org/w3c/tidy/DOMAttrImpl.java (at line 31) public class DOMAttrImpl extends DOMNodeImpl implements org.w3c.dom.Attr { ^^^^^^^^^^^ The type DOMAttrImpl must implement the inherited abstract method Attr.getSchemaTypeInfo() This needs to be fixed. > X BuildRequires are proper > . one of the duplicate "Requires: xml-commons-apis" should become a BuildRequires Verified. > X package builds on i386 > . see above > X package functions > . I don't know how to test this package These are still present (obviously :). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:04:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226354] Merge Review: radvd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131604.l1DG4gKH015875@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: radvd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226354 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jima at beer.tclug.org |mbacovsk at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-13 11:04 EST ------- OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: 8bce4a21757cf069f5a69e2f9bee9e5b radvd-1.0.tar.gz 8bce4a21757cf069f5a69e2f9bee9e5b radvd-1.0.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 0 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. 1. Source URL no longer correct. Apparently you need to change the Source URL to: http://www.litech.org/radvd/dist/radvd-%{version}.tar.gz or such. (Use of %{name} to replace one or more of the radvd's in there is an option, as well.) 2. defattr: The preferred format for defattr is now: %defattr(-,root,root,-) Not sure if it's a blocker or not. 3. BuildRoot: The preferred format for BuildRoot is: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Probably not a blocker, but recommended. 4. rpmlint says: on radvd-1.0-2.fc7.src.rpm: W: radvd no-url-tag Add "URL: http://www.litech.org/radvd/" or such. W: radvd prereq-use chkconfig, /usr/sbin/useradd, /sbin/service, initscripts According to rpmlint -I prereq-use: The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. W: radvd setup-not-quiet Add -q to %setup line. W: radvd macro-in-%changelog doc W: radvd macro-in-%changelog config I see most of the %'s in the changelog are properly escaped as %%, but there are a couple that aren't. Easy enough to fix. on radvd-1.0-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm: W: radvd no-url-tag Addressed above... W: radvd conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/radvd E: radvd executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/radvd %{initdir}/radvd really shouldn't be tagged %config; any configuration options should be coming from /etc/sysconfig/radvd. E: radvd non-standard-uid /var/run/radvd radvd E: radvd non-standard-gid /var/run/radvd radvd I suspect this is ignorable. W: radvd dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel Based on my inquiries, this is ignorable because radvd is found in /usr/share/doc/setup*/uidgid . 5. %makeinstall Usage of %makeinstall isn't recommended, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002 Not a blocker, but I suggest changing it. Address the above, and we're probably good. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:08:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:08:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227061] Review Request: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131608.l1DG8MD1016201@bugzilla.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: isorelax-0.1-0.20041111.2jpp - Public interfaces useful for applications to support RELAX Core https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227061 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:08 EST ------- Fixes verified. Approved. Let me know when this is built in Brew and I will mark it closed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:14:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:14:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131614.l1DGE66m016610@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:13 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=147995) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=147995&action=view) patch to fix remaining issues Remove section free Remove Distribution -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:15:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:15:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131615.l1DGFmST016747@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:15:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227119] Review Request: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131615.l1DGFxRB016779@bugzilla.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: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227119 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pcheung at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:15 EST ------- Fixed Spec and SRPM. Files need reviewing. They are here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/ws-jaxme/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:20:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:20:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227070] Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131620.l1DGKblO017174@bugzilla.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: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227070 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > ... > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) done > * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > COPYRIGHT missing from %doc done > ... > X specfile is legible > - Get rid of Vendor and Distribution tag done > - Source0 should be: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/jflex/jflex-1.3.5.tar.gz done > - Fix release 2jpp.1%{?dist} done > ... > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > line 89 is longer than 80 characters done >... > * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > W: jflex wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/COPYRIGHT > W: jflex uncompressed-zip /usr/share/java/jflex-1.3.5.jar > W: jflex-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: jflex-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: jflex-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm No warnings or errors other than about groups (which can be safely ignored) New spec file can be found here: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/209/jflex.spec New srpm can be found here: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/210/jflex-1.3.5-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:22:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:22:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131622.l1DGMJhs017461@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 ------- Additional Comments From fnasser at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:22 EST ------- I am not sure what is the better course of action w.r.t. the pre-release for these dated packages that were in the previous format (all others get the right rpm ordering, but the YYYYMMDD is a really big number, and for some reason Fedora decided that svn and cvs come _after_ the number). We have basically two choices: 1) Change the format now to the new one and... raise Epoch! 2) Let it be a little longer with the current date in the hopes a release will be issued. Also, I have my doubts about the way the source tar ball is named. This date seems to be the indication of a branch creation date, the release being actually the characters that come after it. I am sending an e-mail to the authors to get that straighten up before we have to do two Epoch bumpings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:23:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:23:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131623.l1DGNrkC017711@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > MUST: > The provides should be (without <): > Provides: owanttask = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} Fixed. > Since with_bootstrap option is added, you'll need to define a value for the > variable. > I'll check the following when the spec file is updated, and rpms rebuilt from > that spec file. Fixed. Defined it to 1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:23:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:23:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227079] Review Request: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131623.l1DGNuoc017718@bugzilla.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: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227079 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:23 EST ------- Fixed Spec and SRPM are here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/maven2-common-poms/ One note about the spec: There is no way to generate a tarball easily because a lot of these poms are not in cvs, yet they are needed for maven2. As more packages move to maven, the poms will move into those package repos and this package will eventually become obsolete. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:23:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:23:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227126] Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131623.l1DGNwqE017724@bugzilla.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: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > MUST: > > X specfile should be %{name}.spec it is xpp2.spec currently > X release should be of form: Xjpp.Y%{?dist} release is now 6jpp.1%{?dist} > X change license to ASL rpmlint doesn't like ASL, it's now Apache Software License > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > - md5sum doesn't match for src rpm and upstream tar source commented in spec I checked the md5sum, and they are the same, could you please check again? Here's what I've done: [pcheung at to-jpackage1 jpp]$ wget http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/xgws/xsoap/xpp/download/PullParser2/PullParser2.1.10.tgz --10:29:51-- http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/xgws/xsoap/xpp/download/PullParser2/PullParser2.1.10.tgz Resolving www.extreme.indiana.edu... 129.79.246.105 Connecting to www.extreme.indiana.edu|129.79.246.105|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 2310288 (2.2M) [application/x-tar] Saving to: `PullParser2.1.10.tgz.1' 100%[=======================================>] 2,310,288 168K/s in 14s 10:30:06 (156 KB/s) - `PullParser2.1.10.tgz.1' saved [2310288/2310288] [pcheung at to-jpackage1 jpp]$ md5sum PullParser2.1.10.tgz 865ca4e2496c215d301b57450137626f PullParser2.1.10.tgz [pcheung at to-jpackage1 jpp]$ md5sum ~/topdir/SOURCES/PullParser2.1.10.tgz 865ca4e2496c215d301b57450137626f /home/pcheung/topdir/SOURCES/PullParser2.1.10.tgz > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > - %doc not used Fixed > X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > > W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development Fixed > W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML That's ok > W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style Fixed -ASL > E: xpp2 unknown-key GPG#c431416d > I'm not seeing this error on the rpms > X Vendor tag should not be used got rid of Vendor and Distrition. > X description has typo (developement) and doesn't end with period. Fixed. > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > X manual subpackage should be renamed doc done > X license is commented as being part of manual but is actually in main package > - should just be moved outside comment Moved license and readme back into main package and mark all docs %doc > X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm > W: xpp2 spelling-error-in-description developement development Fixed > W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML That's ok > W: xpp2 invalid-license Apache Software License -style Fixed > [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-demo-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm > W: xpp2-demo non-standard-group Development/Documentation That's OK > W: xpp2-demo invalid-license Apache Software License -style Fixed > W: xpp2-demo no-documentation There's no doc for that subpackage > W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: xpp2-demo dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Fixed > [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-javadoc-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm > W: xpp2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: xpp2-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License -style > W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: xpp2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Fixed > [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint xpp2-manual-2.1.10-6jpp.noarch.rpm > W: xpp2-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: xpp2-manual invalid-license Apache Software License -style > W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: xpp2-manual dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > Fixed > SHOULD: > X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > * package should build in mock built fine in mock, the only rpmlint warnings from the src and binary rpms left are: W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xpp2 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xpp2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-doc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-demo non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: xpp2-demo no-documentation which should be OK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:25:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:25:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131625.l1DGPOTD017880@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:25 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > MUST: > The provides should be (without <): > Provides: owanttask = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} Fixed. > Since with_bootstrap option is added, you'll need to define a value for the > variable. > I'll check the following when the spec file is updated, and rpms rebuilt from > that spec file. Fixed. Defined it to 1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:33:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:33:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227070] Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131633.l1DGXeDI018405@bugzilla.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: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227070 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > ... > > X correct buildroot > > - should be: > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > done > Thanks. > > * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > > locations) There's an extra . before %{?dist} > > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > > COPYRIGHT missing from %doc > done > It's now in the doc subpackage, but I think it should stay in the main package with a %doc flag in the %files section. > > ... > > X specfile is legible > > - Get rid of Vendor and Distribution tag > done > Thanks > > - Source0 should be: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/jflex/jflex-1.3.5.tar.gz > done Thanks > > > - Fix release 2jpp.1%{?dist} > done > Please note no . after 1. > > ... > > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > > line 89 is longer than 80 characters > done > Great > >... > > * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > > W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > W: jflex wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/COPYRIGHT > > W: jflex uncompressed-zip /usr/share/java/jflex-1.3.5.jar > > W: jflex-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > W: jflex-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > > W: jflex-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > No warnings or errors other than about groups (which can be safely ignored) > > New spec file can be found here: > https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/209/jflex.spec > > New srpm can be found here: > https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/210/jflex-1.3.5-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm rpmlint now gives: W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jflex incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.3.5-2jpp.1 0:1.3.5-2jpp.1. W: jflex uncompressed-zip /usr/share/java/jflex-1.3.5.jar W: jflex-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:34:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:34:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227066] Review Request: jarjar-0.6-2jpp - Jar Jar Links In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131634.l1DGYH1O018594@bugzilla.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: jarjar-0.6-2jpp - Jar Jar Links https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227066 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:36:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:36:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131636.l1DGaYFb018925@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:36 EST ------- Patch applied. Also modified command line that was > 80 chars and modified changelog entries to use @ symbol. http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/jrexx.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:37:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:37:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131637.l1DGbTXf019070@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:40:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:40:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131640.l1DGeD0I019576@bugzilla.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: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:50:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:50:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131650.l1DGoouP020699@bugzilla.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: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:50 EST ------- APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:51:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:51:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227057] Review Request: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131651.l1DGpwUo020802@bugzilla.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: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227057 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |fitzsim at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:51 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 16:52:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227079] Review Request: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131652.l1DGqMee020857@bugzilla.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: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227079 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 11:52 EST ------- Lines marked with X need to be fixed. ? lines should be looked at if possible. MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches . we really need to host the source tarball somewhere other than just in the SRPM. Even just on your people page is fine. The XML file as well. X skim the summary and description for typos, etc. . "maven2 dependent" -> "maven2-dependent" * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used appropriately X license text included in package and marked with %doc . since you're maintaining the source, can you include the ASL text? * package(s) meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on maven2-common-poms-1.0-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm gives no output W: maven2-common-poms non-standard-group Development/Java . safe to ignore * changelog fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * License used and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X BuildRequires are proper . why the Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils? There's no %postun. * summary is a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary * lines are <= 80 characters (except buildroot which is fine) * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * no %makeinstall * no locale data ? consider using cp -p on line 5 of %install * no Requires(pre,post) * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime . adding ASL.txt won't affect this * not a web app * final provides and requires sane * rpmlint on the binary RPMs: SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package builds on i386 ? package builds in mock . it's just building in mock now ... I don't anticipate a problem -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 17:02:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:02:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227032] Review Request: asm-1.5.3-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131702.l1DH2wWv022355@bugzilla.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: asm-1.5.3-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227032 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-13 12:02 EST ------- asm-1.5.3-2jpp.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. NO * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot -- NO * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc -- OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint asm-1.5.3-2jpp.src.rpm W: asm non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java E: asm unknown-key GPG#c431416d W: asm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 31) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. OK * Packager tag should not be used NO * Vendor tag should not be used -- Vendor: JPackage Project -- OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement NO * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 -- Cannot find build req objectweb-anttask. Exiting. -- ?? * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? NO * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- ... (cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name} && for jar in *-%{version}*; do \ ln -sf ${jar} ${jar/-%{version}/}; done) ... -- OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content NO * package should own all directories and files -- not all files listed (missing LICENSE.txt for example) -- OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc -- ?? * package should build on i386 NO * package should build in mock -- Cannot find build req objectweb-anttask. Exiting. -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 17:07:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:07:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131707.l1DH7JvL023092@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-13 12:07 EST ------- Here's the link to the source rpm: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/objectweb-anttasks/objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 17:11:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:11:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131711.l1DHBkdE023565@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-13 12:11 EST ------- > - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > . The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > 0:1.0-0.b2.1jpp should comply to Fedora + JPackage exception guidelines: Sorry. You dont need the epoch bump since the prerelease tag is alphabetic. Could you please keep it at 0? > W: ant-contrib-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: > "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", > "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", > "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", > "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", > "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", > "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", > "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", > "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System > Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System > Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User > Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". > > W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > . Please apply the following: > https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html > >> Fixed, please let me know if I've done it correctly. :) Sounds good, but actually you no longer need the unversioned jar link. Delete it and get rid of the unversioned link > X * package should own all directories and files > + Since package is installing to %{_javadir} should add Requires(pre), > Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils but if the javadoc handling is fixed then a > simple requires is good enough > >> Require: jpackage-utils added Also need Requires(postun) on each of the packages/subpackages add a Requires and Requires(postun) on jpackage-util Please change these and then I will rebuild it in mock, other than that the package seems OK to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 17:12:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:12:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131712.l1DHCfMM023675@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 17:20:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:20:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227092] Review Request: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131720.l1DHKccL024617@bugzilla.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: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227092 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 12:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > ============================== > RPMLINT output for source RPM: > ============================== > > W: piccolo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: piccolo strange-permission piccolo-1.04-src.zip 0600 Fixed > W: piccolo setup-not-quiet Fixed > > =============================== > RPMLINT output for binary RPMs: > =============================== > > piccolo-1.04-2jpp.noarch.rpm: > ----------------------------- > W: piccolo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: piccolo wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/piccolo-1.04/LICENSE.txt Fixed > > piccolo-javadoc-1.04-2jpp.noarch.rpm: > ------------------------------------- > W: piccolo-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: piccolo-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: piccolo-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > Fixed, please check if I've done it correctly. > > - Change %License to Apache Software License. > Fixed > - Fix %Release tag. Fixed > > - Change %BuildRoot tag to > "%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)". > Fixed > - Remove %Vendor tag. > Fixed > - Remove %Distribution tag. > Fixed > - In the future, when gcj support added, remove %BuildArch tag. > > Added gcj support. Now rpmlint gives: [pcheung at toque new]$ rpmlint /home/pcheung/topdir/SRPMS/piccolo-1.04-2jpp.1.src.rpm /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/piccolo-1.04-2jpp.1.i386.rpm /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/piccolo-javadoc-1.04-2jpp.1.i386.rpm /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/piccolo-debuginfo-1.04-2jpp.1.i386.rpm W: piccolo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: piccolo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: piccolo-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation spec file and srpm can be found at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/211/piccolo.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/212/piccolo-1.04-2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 17:24:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:24:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228537] New: Review Request: perl-IO-Compress-Base - Base package for new perl-IO-Compress modules 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=228537 Summary: Review Request: perl-IO-Compress-Base - Base package for new perl-IO-Compress modules Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rnorwood at redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review at redhat.com,notting at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/perl-IO-Compress-Base.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/perl-IO-Compress-Base-2.003-1.src.rpm Description: perl-IO-Compress-Base is the new base package for the various IO::Compress module. The latest version of packages such as perl-Compress-Zlib requires this 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 Tue Feb 13 17:41:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:41:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131741.l1DHfbgX026856@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 12:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > > - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > > . The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > > 0:1.0-0.b2.1jpp should comply to Fedora + JPackage exception guidelines: > Sorry. You dont need the epoch bump since the prerelease tag is alphabetic. > Could you please keep it at 0? > Done > > W: ant-contrib-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: > > "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", > > "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", > > "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", > > "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", > > "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", > > "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", > > "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", > > "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System > > Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System > > Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User > > Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". > > > > W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > > W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > > . Please apply the following: > > https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html > > > >> Fixed, please let me know if I've done it correctly. :) > Sounds good, but actually you no longer need the unversioned jar link. Delete it > and get rid of the unversioned link > Fixed that in javadoc and manual as well. > > X * package should own all directories and files > > + Since package is installing to %{_javadir} should add Requires(pre), > > Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils but if the javadoc handling is fixed then a > > simple requires is good enough > > > >> Require: jpackage-utils added > Also need Requires(postun) on each of the packages/subpackages add a Requires > and Requires(postun) on jpackage-util > Added > Please change these and then I will rebuild it in mock, other than that the > package seems OK to me. > > spec file and srpm can be found at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/207/piccolo.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/208/piccolo-1.04-2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 17:57:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:57:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131757.l1DHvuPa027997@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dan at danny.cz |bnocera at redhat.com CC| |dan at danny.cz Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-13 12:57 EST ------- The formal review is here: OK source files match upstream: ba0bf8b4720537b08aba9b0d2d5b3fbe796ce9957a56334354a2f95694866a7c flac-1.1.3.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires looks sane: OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths and ldconfig is run. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers are in -devel. OK no pkgconfig files. OK not a GUI app. MUST FIX: BAD rpmlint is NOT silent. result of running "rpmlint -vi" W: flac-devel summary-ended-with-dot Static libraries and header files from FLAC. you forgot the dot in the second Summary ;-) I: flac.i386.rpm checking E: flac obsolete-not-provided flac-libs The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths and not to break dependencies. I: flac.srpm checking W: flac unversioned-explicit-obsoletes flac-libs The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. Some info from the Wiki - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines?highlight=%28obsolete%29#head-3cfc1ea19d28975faad9d56f70a6ae55661d3c3d -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:08:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:08:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227113] Review Request: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131808.l1DI852s028586@bugzilla.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: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227113 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fitzsim at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:09:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:09:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131809.l1DI9F9O028698@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 13:09 EST ------- sorry, spec file and srpm can be found: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/207/ant-contrib.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/208/ant-contrib-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:13:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:13:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227041] Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131813.l1DIDiFG029001@bugzilla.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: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227041 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |fitzsim at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:17:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:17:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227041] Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131817.l1DIHEa5029200@bugzilla.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: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227041 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:19:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:19:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227122] Review Request: xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp - XML-Java binding tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131819.l1DIJCwS029384@bugzilla.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: xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp - XML-Java binding tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227122 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fitzsim at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-13 13:19 EST ------- Taking this as it's needed by Rhino. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:21:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:21:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227070] Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131821.l1DILtD3029598@bugzilla.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: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227070 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-13 13:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > ... > > > X correct buildroot > > > - should be: > > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > done > > > Thanks. > > > * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > > > locations) > There's an extra . before %{?dist} Oops, fixed. > > > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > > > COPYRIGHT missing from %doc > > done > > > It's now in the doc subpackage, but I think it should stay in the main package > with a %doc flag in the %files section. There is no doc subpackage, the doc files are being marked with %doc in the main package's %file section. > > > ... > > > X specfile is legible > > > - Get rid of Vendor and Distribution tag > > done > > > Thanks > > > - Source0 should be: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/jflex/jflex-1.3.5.tar.gz > > done > Thanks > > > > > - Fix release 2jpp.1%{?dist} > > done > > > Please note no . after 1. > > > ... > > > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > > > line 89 is longer than 80 characters > > done > > > Great > > >... > > > * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > > > W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > > W: jflex wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/COPYRIGHT > > > W: jflex uncompressed-zip /usr/share/java/jflex-1.3.5.jar > > > W: jflex-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > > W: jflex-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > > > W: jflex-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > > No warnings or errors other than about groups (which can be safely ignored) > > > > New spec file can be found here: > > https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/209/jflex.spec > > > > New srpm can be found here: > > > https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/210/jflex-1.3.5-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm > > rpmlint now gives: > W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > W: jflex incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.3.5-2jpp.1 0:1.3.5-2jpp.1. > W: jflex uncompressed-zip /usr/share/java/jflex-1.3.5.jar > W: jflex-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation hmm, not getting the uncompressed-zip on my version. The spec file and srpm has been updated to the same location -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:22:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:22:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228544] New: Review Request: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller 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=228544 Summary: Review Request: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matthias at rpmforge.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/keepalived/ SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/keepalived/ Description: The main goal of the keepalived project is to add a strong & robust keepalive facility to the Linux Virtual Server project. This project is written in C with multilayer TCP/IP stack checks. Keepalived implements a framework based on three family checks : Layer3, Layer4 & Layer5/7. This framework gives the daemon the ability to check the state of an LVS server pool. When one of the servers of the LVS server pool is down, keepalived informs the linux kernel via a setsockopt call to remove this server entry from the LVS topology. In addition keepalived implements an independent VRRPv2 stack to handle director failover. So in short keepalived is a userspace daemon for LVS cluster nodes healthchecks and LVS directors failover. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:30:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:30:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227040] Review Request: batik-1.6-2jpp - Scalable Vector Graphics for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131830.l1DIUE0x030129@bugzilla.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: batik-1.6-2jpp - Scalable Vector Graphics for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227040 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fitzsim at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:30:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131830.l1DIULAZ030138@bugzilla.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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |matthias at rpmforge.net ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-13 13:30 EST ------- Any answer yet? Would it be worth trying to make a package based on a modified version of the current release, which would have all non GPL licensed code ripped out? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:30:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:30:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227055] Review Request: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131830.l1DIUux2030199@bugzilla.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: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227055 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |fitzsim at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:36:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:36:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225716] Review Request: gnome-screensaver-frogs - GNOME Screensaver Slideshow of Frogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131836.l1DIaxUo030718@bugzilla.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: gnome-screensaver-frogs - GNOME Screensaver Slideshow of Frogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225716 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |matthias at rpmforge.net ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-13 13:36 EST ------- You might want to add -p to the install lines, in order to preserve the original file timestamps between rebuilds. Also, I see no point in having the %{?dist} tag for this 6MB noarch package, as it would be better to hardlink it across Fedora releases. Oh, and... is this package for real? :-) If it is, I'll take the time to look at it closer and do a proper review ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:38:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:38:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131838.l1DIc4tN030799@bugzilla.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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-13 13:38 EST ------- > Would it be worth trying to make a package based on a modified > version of the current release... That should be ok. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:42:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:42:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227079] Review Request: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131842.l1DIg7wv031108@bugzilla.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: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227079 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 13:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > ? package builds in mock > . it's just building in mock now ... I don't anticipate a problem It finished fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:42:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:42:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131842.l1DIgDnk031121@bugzilla.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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-13 13:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16) > > Would it be worth trying to make a package based on a modified > > version of the current release... > > That should be ok. I'll get on that and re-post SRPM and SPEC. I can follow up with upstream and re-release later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:42:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:42:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227955] Review Request: yum-refresh-updatesd - Tell yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131842.l1DIgTj8031163@bugzilla.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: yum-refresh-updatesd - Tell yum-updatesd to check for updates when yum exits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227955 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:44:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:44:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227078] Review Request: jython-2.2-0.a0.3jpp - Java source interpreter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131844.l1DIigPa031357@bugzilla.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: jython-2.2-0.a0.3jpp - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227078 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:44:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:44:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224245] Merge Review: squirrelmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131844.l1DIijO1031372@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: squirrelmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224245 ------- Additional Comments From tokul at users.sourceforge.net 2007-02-13 13:44 EST ------- I have resigned from SquirrelMail development four months ago. Now I maintain only Lithuanian SquirrelMail translation, plugins that I wrote and my own forked SquirrelMail version. I don't have write access to SquirrelMail software repository and can't push your updates. I can provide patches similar to squirrelmail 1.4.8.utf8-1 (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=311&package_id=200705) and improve decoding functions for better CJK support, but these updates will contain my copyrights. I won't assign copyrights to some other person or organization, because I don't know how they will react when copyrights are violated. I don't think that you will like me as maintainer. I will refuse to make core code modifications that break MIME rfcs. See "when charset Does not exist" mails on SquirrelMail devel mailing list. MIME violations are quite common. They will be visible in interface which uses utf8 and not some default country's character set. I strongly recommend talking to SquirrelMail devels and trying to push utf-8 updates to stable SquirrelMail 1.4 version or to some branch from 1.4.x. SquirrelMail tracker has a bug report which can't be fixed without switching to single interface character set. I can help Fedora and SquirrelMail in maintenance of utf-8 SquirrelMail version, if SquirrelMail developers respect my copyrights and updates are included in some 1.4.x version. I will refuse to work on code included only in squirrelmail 1.5.x/2.x. SquirrelMail devels won't be able to add exemptions to current GPL v.2 SquirrelMail license, if SquirrelMail HEAD branch contains my code written after 2006-10-09. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:44:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:44:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227060] Review Request: icu4j-3.4.5-1jpp - International Components for Unicode for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131844.l1DIiqFq031391@bugzilla.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: icu4j-3.4.5-1jpp - International Components for Unicode for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227060 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:45:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:45:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224477] Review Request: spamassassin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131845.l1DIjELv031439@bugzilla.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: spamassassin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224477 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:45:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217735] Review Request: tcldict - Tcl dictionary extensiuon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131845.l1DIjlrF031502@bugzilla.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: tcldict - Tcl dictionary extensiuon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217735 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:46:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:46:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206478] Review Request: Yumdiff - Compares RPMS installed on local and remote systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131846.l1DIkdoI031587@bugzilla.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: Yumdiff - Compares RPMS installed on local and remote systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206478 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:48:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:48:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227034] Review Request: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131848.l1DImLE6031788@bugzilla.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: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227034 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-13 13:47 EST ------- MUST: X - release should be of form Xjpp.Y%{?dist} X - faq.html doesn't match md5sum X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X license text should be included in package and marked with %doc - currently this is done indirectly via faq.html - suggest downloading license.html as well and marking as %doc X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output W: asm2 non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java E: asm2 unknown-key GPG#c431416d W: asm2 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 31) X changelog should use @ instead of "at" X Vendor tag should not be used X Distribution tag should be removed X remove %define section free X remove post and postun sections X remove ghost X change javadoc files section to be - %doc %{_javadocdir}/* X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint asm2-2.1-2jpp.noarch.rpm W: asm2 non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: asm2 incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:2.1-1jpp 0:2.1-2jpp W: asm2 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/asm2-2.1/README.txt W: asm2 class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/asm2/asm2-xml-2.1.jar [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint asm2-javadoc-2.1-2jpp.noarch.rpm W: asm2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: asm2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: asm2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:49:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:49:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222598] Review Request: php-pecl-radius - Radius client library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131849.l1DInQvW031862@bugzilla.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: php-pecl-radius - Radius client library Alias: php-pecl-radius https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222598 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |matthias at rpmforge.net ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-13 13:49 EST ------- I wanted to take a quick look at this package, but it seems that tkmame.retrogames.com is unavailable at the moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:52:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:52:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227106] Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131852.l1DIqFEH032141@bugzilla.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: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227106 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:53:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:53:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227117] Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131853.l1DIr1kB032234@bugzilla.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: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 13:52 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > I'm still getting this on the srpm: > > W: tagsoup mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 54) (this is > > on the gcj requires) > Oops, fixed... > Great > > and this on the binary rpm: > > W: tagsoup incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.0.1-1jpp.1.fc7 0:1.0.1-1jpp.1 > > This is fixed too > > Buildroot should be: > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n > > (-root missing) > > > Thanks > Sweet > > Also, since gcj support is added, we need to have %define _with_gcj_support 1. > > > Fixed. > The updated package is available at the same URL > > rpmlint on the rpms built in mock: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/tagsoup-* W: tagsoup non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: tagsoup non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: tagsoup-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation APPROVED. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:53:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:53:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228465] Review Request: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131853.l1DIrWh9032268@bugzilla.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: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228465 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:53:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:53:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131853.l1DIrmfI032305@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:53:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:53:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228279] Review Request: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131853.l1DIrvYn032361@bugzilla.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: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228279 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:53:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:53:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228291] Review Request: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131853.l1DIrtc2032343@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228291 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:54:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:54:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228468] Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131854.l1DIs7I9032417@bugzilla.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: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228468 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:54:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:54:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227079] Review Request: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131854.l1DIsFuH032439@bugzilla.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: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227079 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-13 13:53 EST ------- I put the source tarball file here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/public/maven2-common-poms-src.tar.gz There is a Requires on jpackage-utils because /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils. I have removed the Requires(postun). Fixed spec and srpm are in the same location, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:54:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:54:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228469] Review Request: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131854.l1DIspk3032501@bugzilla.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: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228469 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:55:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228476] Review Request: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131855.l1DIt6rx032584@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228476 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:55:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:55:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228477] Review Request: hunspell-gl - Galician hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131855.l1DIt2sE032554@bugzilla.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: hunspell-gl - Galician hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228477 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:55:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:55:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228478] Review Request: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131855.l1DItL3G032617@bugzilla.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: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228478 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:55:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227090] Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131855.l1DItqqD032680@bugzilla.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: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-13 13:55 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148012) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148012&action=view) Small patch to spec file Looks good overall, minor fixes to the spec file are attached in the patch. The unversioned javadoc link is not necessary and it probably best to add a requires/requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %{_javadir}/%{_javadoc} ownership -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:56:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:56:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131856.l1DIu7Gc032731@bugzilla.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: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227125 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-13 13:55 EST ------- xom-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name ?? * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? ?? - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware ?? - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. NO * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot -- NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc: %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt -- OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint xom-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm W: xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML E: xom unknown-key GPG#c431416d -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. OK * Packager tag should not be used NO * Vendor tag should not be used -- Vendor: JPackage Project -- OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? NO * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- ... install -m 644 build/%{name}-%{version}.jar \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar (cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} && for jar in *-%{version}.jar; do ln -sf ${jar} `echo $jar| sed "s|-%{version}||g"`; done) ... -- OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present NA * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc: %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt -- ?? * package should build on i386 NO * package should build in mock -- Cannot find build req tagsoup. Exiting. -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:56:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:56:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228471] Review Request: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131856.l1DIuCs1032748@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228471 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:56:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228472] Review Request: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131856.l1DIuJgD032759@bugzilla.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: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228472 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:57:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:57:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228473] Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131857.l1DIvL3X000347@bugzilla.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: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228473 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 18:58:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:58:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227090] Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131858.l1DIwdY4000603@bugzilla.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: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:00:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:00:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227126] Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131900.l1DJ0XTW000737@bugzilla.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: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:00 EST ------- URL for spec file and srpm: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/213/xpp2.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/214/xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:05:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:05:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131905.l1DJ56sD001362@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:05:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:05:22 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217350=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2100-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2100_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131905.l1DJ5Mi7001411@bugzilla.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: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 rpm at greysector.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net 2007-02-13 14:05 EST ------- Green light from Bill, removing FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:05:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:05:49 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131905.l1DJ5naJ001515@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 rpm at greysector.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net 2007-02-13 14:05 EST ------- Green light from Bill, removing FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:07:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:07:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131907.l1DJ7nKt001818@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:09:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:09:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131909.l1DJ98cC001981@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:10:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227126] Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131910.l1DJAG1t002076@bugzilla.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: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:10 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:16:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:16:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131916.l1DJG36V002477@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:15 EST ------- Sorry... The latest post was not the latest version. Here is the link again, with the latest version: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/objectweb-anttasks/objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:19:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:19:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131919.l1DJJ8UQ002749@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 14:19 EST ------- Hey Phil. Did we come to any conclusion based on the thread on Fedora Maintainers? Or would you like me to try and get the packaging comittee to come up with a guideline for this case? Personally, I think this package should not have any ownership of the log file. Since logrotate will leave other versions of the log around, something is going to be lingering on package removal anyhow. I guess a case could be made for making a /var/log/acpid/ directory and putting logs in there, as that would make selinux labeling easier, but thats all I can think of. Your thoughts? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:23:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:23:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131923.l1DJNY0Q003186@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:23:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:23:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] New: Review Request: Fedora Directory Server 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=228555 Summary: Review Request: Fedora Directory Server Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rmeggins at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com CC: dennis at ausil.us,jwilson at redhat.com SRPM URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/sources/fds110a1/fedora-ds-1.1.0-0.1.20070213.src.rpm Source URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/sources/fds110a1/fedora-ds-1.1.0-20070213.tar.bz2 Spec URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/sources/fds110a1/fedora-ds.spec Other sources: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/sources/fds110a1/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:25:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:25:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227090] Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131925.l1DJPp9Z003453@bugzilla.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: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:25 EST ------- New patch applied. Removed requires postun as this was deemed unnecessary by Andrew. I also put back the changelog entries I had changed as the old format for e-mail address is ok. The %doc statement was changed to the new agreed format of %{_javadocdir}/* http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/nekohtml.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:26:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:26:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227046] Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131926.l1DJQjsX003518@bugzilla.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: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227046 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:32:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:32:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227106] Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131932.l1DJW9RJ004085@bugzilla.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: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227106 ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:31 EST ------- Looks good to me, only thing I noticed is that the license file is still missing: " NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc " -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:32:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:32:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131932.l1DJW89H004071@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:35:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:35:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227114] Review Request: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131935.l1DJZM7S004354@bugzilla.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: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227114 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:35:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:35:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227106] Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131935.l1DJZaqt004390@bugzilla.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: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227106 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:35 EST ------- That is fine. The license needs to be in the file only if the tarball includes it. In this case, it doesn't. Please mark fedora-review+ if you are satisfied with the srpm/spec in it's current state. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:35:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:35:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228544] Review Request: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131935.l1DJZRJZ004378@bugzilla.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: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228544 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-13 14:35 EST ------- I have tried to rebuild it on FC6 system with 2 kernels and 2 kernel-devels and it is confused. The include path is -I/lib/modules/2.6.18-1.2869.fc62.6.19-1.2895.fc6/build/include. There is a missing \n in the query format. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:38:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:38:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131938.l1DJcKga004624@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:38:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:38:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222523] Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131938.l1DJccl1004671@bugzilla.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:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222523 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:40:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:40:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 209608] Review Request: dwdiff - Front end to diff for comparing files on a word per word basis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131940.l1DJe1L5004806@bugzilla.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: dwdiff - Front end to diff for comparing files on a word per word basis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209608 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:44:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:44:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131944.l1DJiM8s005201@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:44:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:44:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227034] Review Request: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131944.l1DJiV4S005233@bugzilla.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: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227034 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:44 EST ------- Updated SRPM and spec: http://overholt.ca/fedora/asm2-2.1-2jpp.1.src.rpm http://overholt.ca/fedora/asm2.spec (In reply to comment #1) > X - release should be of form Xjpp.Y%{?dist} Fixed. > X - faq.html doesn't match md5sum Removed as it was unnecessary. > X correct buildroot Fixed. > X license text should be included in package and marked with %doc > - currently this is done indirectly via faq.html > - suggest downloading license.html as well and marking as %doc LICENSE.txt (already included) used instead. > X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > > W: asm2 non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Fixed. > E: asm2 unknown-key GPG#c431416d This was because you didn't have the JPackage key on your system. > W: asm2 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 31) Fixed. > X changelog should use @ instead of "at" I actually don't think this should be changed. > X Vendor tag should not be used Fixed. > X Distribution tag should be removed Done. > X remove %define section free Done. > X remove post and postun sections Done. > X remove ghost Done. > X change javadoc files section to be > - %doc %{_javadocdir}/* Done. > W: asm2 non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Fixed. > W: asm2 incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:2.1-1jpp 0:2.1-2jpp It seems to have gone away for me. > W: asm2 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/asm2-2.1/README.txt Fixed. > W: asm2 class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/asm2/asm2-xml-2.1.jar This I don't know how to fix. > [jjohnstn at vermillion noarch]$ rpmlint asm2-javadoc-2.1-2jpp.noarch.rpm > W: asm2-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: asm2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: asm2-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Fixed, fixed, fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:46:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:46:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227210] Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131946.l1DJkoSG005406@bugzilla.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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 14:46 EST ------- Here's a review: See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines See below - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GFDL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: ffc058efd0283a4b43ca31980c40db49 gnucash-docs-2.0.1.tar.bz2 ffc058efd0283a4b43ca31980c40db49 gnucash-docs-2.0.1.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. It looks like the standard that was decided on for naming documentation subpackages is '-doc' not '-docs'... but then, this isn't really a subpackage, it's named gnucash-docs upstream and distributed as a seperate tar, so I think this is ok. Do you concur? See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-5ece6e38e05f6127ec27ae5b4584a8ac0a112849 2. This package installs under %{_datadir}/gnome/help, but doesn't own that directory. Should it require some package that does own that directory? I don't see any obvious good choices however... any thoughts there? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:47:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:47:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228544] Review Request: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131947.l1DJlXIQ005473@bugzilla.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: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228544 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-13 14:47 EST ------- Thanks for the catch! Fixed in keepalived-1.1.13-4.fc6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:49:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:49:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228544] Review Request: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131949.l1DJn5sI005524@bugzilla.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: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228544 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-13 14:48 EST ------- Also the debug package is empty on FC6. The cause can be Makefile in the keepalived subdir where the binary is linked together. There is no -g in the $(CC) command. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:50:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:50:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227210] Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131950.l1DJodUq005630@bugzilla.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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:50 EST ------- 1. I'd agree - matching the upstream tarball is best. 2. Nothing relevant actually owns %{_datadir}/gnome/help. Sort of an impasse. :/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:52:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:52:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227210] Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131952.l1DJqGFM005725@bugzilla.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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:52 EST ------- Bug 228561 filed re: yelp & %{_datadir}/gnome/help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:53:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:53:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131953.l1DJrLHR005807@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Patch applied. Also modified command line that was > 80 chars and modified > changelog entries to use @ symbol. > > http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp.1.src.rpm > http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/jrexx.spec If you change the email addresses back, I think I'll approve it :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:54:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:54:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228544] Review Request: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131954.l1DJsJnA005902@bugzilla.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: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228544 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-13 14:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Thanks for the catch! Fixed in keepalived-1.1.13-4.fc6. Double backslash required ;-) I have tried it ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:55:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:55:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228544] Review Request: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131955.l1DJtosX005991@bugzilla.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: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228544 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-13 14:55 EST ------- Oops, I noticed the \\n problem seconds after having send the new spec file... I've overwritten keepalived-1.1.13-4.fc6 with a version where both the \\n and the stripping problem are fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:57:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:57:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131957.l1DJvf8R006122@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 jeff at ocjtech.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 19:58:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:58:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227210] Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702131958.l1DJw7jP006177@bugzilla.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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-13 14:58 EST ------- ... and fixed. I suppose the yelp dep could move from gnucash proper to here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:01:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:01:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227210] Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132001.l1DK1VHd006457@bugzilla.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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 15:01 EST ------- Wow...that was quick. ;) Yes, this package should be the one that requires yelp... it doesn't currently. I don't think off hand gnucash will need to require yelp anymore either... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:01:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:01:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226475] Merge Review: SysVinit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132001.l1DK1ndL006487@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: SysVinit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 15:01 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a few. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:02:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:02:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227210] Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132002.l1DK2VCh006573@bugzilla.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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-13 15:02 EST ------- New spec/srpm uploaded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:05:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:05:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227090] Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132005.l1DK5mjt006715@bugzilla.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: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-13 15:05 EST ------- Looks good to me. Built fine in mock. I am going to approve this. Please build it into rawhide and once I can confirm it has made it through I will close it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:08:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:08:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227210] Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132008.l1DK8Q7J006961@bugzilla.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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 15:08 EST ------- Looks good to me. I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this NEXTRELEASE once it's imported and built. In order to move gnucash, gnucash-docs into the extras cvs, we also need abqbanking, right? Or will they need to all wait for the main core merge? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:10:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:10:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227079] Review Request: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132010.l1DKAj1t007108@bugzilla.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: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227079 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 15:10 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > X verify source and patches > . we really need to host the source tarball somewhere other than just in the > SRPM. Even just on your people page is fine. The XML file as well. The md5sums now match. X Please change the Source0 line to the full URL > X skim the summary and description for typos, etc. > . "maven2 dependent" -> "maven2-dependent" Verified, thanks. > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > . since you're maintaining the source, can you include the ASL text? Can we do this? > X BuildRequires are proper > . why the Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils? There's no %postun. Verified. > X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc This is the only thing remaining. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:11:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:11:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132011.l1DKBU45007147@bugzilla.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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |cgoorah at yahoo.com.au -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:19:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:19:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227210] Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132019.l1DKJvOx007595@bugzilla.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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-13 15:19 EST ------- The whole stack is: gwenhywfar (bug 221947) -\ libofx (bug 221944) ------> aqbanking (bug 222522)-\ gnucash-docs (bug 227210) --------------------------> gnucash (bug 222388) g-wrap (bug 222347) -------------------------------/ Currently in APPROVED: gnucash, gnucash-docs, libofx, gwenhywfar So, I could move gnucash/gnucash-docs, albeit reverting the minor packaging changes that were there to work with the in-review aqbanking package. Or wait for aqbanking to finish review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:32:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:32:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227210] Review Request: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132032.l1DKWS1v008381@bugzilla.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: gnucash-docs - documentation for gnucash https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227210 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 15:32 EST ------- I could review aqbanking probibly later tonight... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:34:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:34:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226475] Merge Review: SysVinit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132034.l1DKYqU3008459@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: SysVinit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |notting at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 15:34 EST ------- See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines See below - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 7d5d61c026122ab791ac04c8a84db967 sysvinit-2.86.tar.gz 7d5d61c026122ab791ac04c8a84db967 sysvinit-2.86.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. See below - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. See below - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 5 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Ok, I have to ask... why does this package use StUdLyCaps? The upstream package is called 'sysvinit'. I know it's been that way forever, but perhaps we could fix that now? 2. Might include the LICENSE file, which is not the GPL, but at least explains that this package is released under the GPL and where to get it. I suppose you could also bug upstream about including a copy. 3. Use the approved buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 4. There is a single include file shipped here in the main package: /usr/include/initreq.h It seems useless to make a -devel package for one header, but does it make any sense to ship it at all? Perhaps that should just get dropped? 5. Our pal rpmlint says: a) W: SysVinit summary-ended-with-dot Programs which control basic system processes. Suggest: remove . at the end of the summary? b) W: SysVinit no-url-tag Suggest: add "URL: ftp://ftp.cistron.nl/pub/people/miquels/sysvinit/" Not very informative, but better than nothing... c) E: SysVinit setgid-binary /usr/bin/wall tty 02555 E: SysVinit non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/wall 02555 E: SysVinit non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/wall 02555 Suggest: ignore, these are needed. d) W: SysVinit devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/initreq.h Suggest: Stop shipping this? Or ignore. e) W: SysVinit dangerous-command-in-%post ln Suggest: Don't see an easy way to avoid the ln. Do you? 6. Upstream seems not very active (last release 2004), but would it still be worth trying to push some of these patches upstream? There are a lot of them here... 7. Minor: Might replace the /usr/bin in %files with %{_bindir} 8. Minor: add dist tag? 9. The 5 outstanding bugs on this package don't seem to be package related, but you might take a quick look at them to see if they can easily be solved while making the above changes? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:39:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:39:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132039.l1DKdRQb008840@bugzilla.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: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-13 15:39 EST ------- Ralf or Jason, do you want to continue this review, or you gave up? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:45:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:45:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222598] Review Request: php-pecl-radius - Radius client library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132045.l1DKj8KU009620@bugzilla.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: php-pecl-radius - Radius client library Alias: php-pecl-radius https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222598 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-13 15:45 EST ------- Unfortunately not the most reliable server. Seems to be back up now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:45:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:45:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227090] Review Request: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132045.l1DKjjCQ009725@bugzilla.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: nekohtml-0.9.5-4jpp - HTML scanner and tag balancer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227090 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:53:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226475] Merge Review: SysVinit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132053.l1DKrQFk010461@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: SysVinit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-13 15:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Issues: > > 1. Ok, I have to ask... why does this package use StUdLyCaps? > The upstream package is called 'sysvinit'. I know it's been that way > forever, but perhaps we could fix that now? History. I suppose we could change it. Would need the usual obsoletes/provides stuff. > 2. Might include the LICENSE file, which is not the GPL, but at least explains > that this package is released under the GPL and where to get it. > I suppose you could also bug upstream about including a copy. Done. > 3. Use the approved buildroot: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Yeah, was already fixed in CVS. Should have built that. > 4. There is a single include file shipped here in the main package: > > /usr/include/initreq.h > > It seems useless to make a -devel package for one header, but does it make > any sense to ship it at all? Perhaps that should just get dropped? See bug 119039; it's just a structure definition. > 5. Our pal rpmlint says: > a) > W: SysVinit summary-ended-with-dot Programs which control basic system processes. > b) > W: SysVinit no-url-tag Fixed. > e) > W: SysVinit dangerous-command-in-%post ln > > Suggest: Don't see an easy way to avoid the ln. Do you? Taken out and shot. initrunlvl hasn't been supported by init for nearly 4 years. Oops. > 6. Upstream seems not very active (last release 2004), but would it still > be worth trying to push some of these patches upstream? There are a lot of > them here... Most everything has been sent at one point or another. > 7. Minor: Might replace the /usr/bin in %files with %{_bindir} Would have to patch the makefiles. > 8. Minor: add dist tag? Well, we never rebase/update it, so, not sure what it gains. New stuff uploaded at http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 20:57:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:57:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228544] Review Request: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132057.l1DKvHbE010676@bugzilla.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: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228544 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dan at danny.cz OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-13 15:57 EST ------- Full review is here: OK source files match upstream: 2545bd681580a97f9c5c9bbe6fe2f8a91988d0c5f063bba048148b52ccde2568 keepalived-1.1.13.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. BAD final provides and requires don?t look sane: the scriptlet Requires are missing Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/service OK %check is present and all tests pass: OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK scriptlets are present and are sane. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. after you will add the scriptlet Requires, then the package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:01:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:01:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227066] Review Request: jarjar-0.6-2jpp - Jar Jar Links In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132101.l1DL16pl010941@bugzilla.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: jarjar-0.6-2jpp - Jar Jar Links https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227066 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com CC| |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-13 16:00 EST ------- Packages marked with X need fixing. MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved GPL - OK - not a kernel module It isn't - not shareware It isn't - is it covered by patents? No - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator It isn't - no binary firmware No * license field matches the actual license. Yes * license is open source-compatible. Yes - use acronyms for licences where common Used * specfile name matches %{name} Yes * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) No patches X - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah Needs instructions X * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. Can the summary be made more descriptive? X * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Needs fixing. X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) %{?dist} should be used * license text included in package and marked with %doc No license in package. OK. * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK X * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there W: jarjar non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: jarjar-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: jarjar-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jarjar-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm W: jarjar non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. OK X * Distributor tag should not be used Fix X * Vendor tag should not be used Fix * use License and not Copyright OK X * Summary tag should not end in a period OK (Summary needs changing, so please be sure to follow this then) * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK X * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK with help from jpackage. Please build in mock when dependencies are done. X * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which Build in mock to confirm. X * summary should be a short and concise description of the package Summary needs update. See above. * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters Line 8 in %install is too long. * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible NA * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? No * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs OK SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc No. Package tarball does not have it. X * package should build on i386 No X * package should build in mock No $ rpm -qp --provides ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm jarjar = 0:0.6-2jpp $ rpm -qp --requires ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm asm2 gnu.regexp rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpm -qp --provides ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-javadoc-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm jarjar-javadoc = 0:0.6-2jpp $ rpm -qp --requires ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-javadoc-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:13:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:13:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132113.l1DLDnaG012027@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ville.skytta at iki.fi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-13 16:13 EST ------- Ok, I think that's good enough, approved. Final non-blocker suggestions to consider before doing the first build: - Drop trailing ".1" from the Version tag. - Instead of defining magic-mode-alist to a dummy value in nxml-init.el on earlier Emacsen (which may have side effects if other modes test for its existence and make decisions based on that), do something like this instead: (if (boundp 'magic-mode-alist) ;; then do the setq (which could be replaced by add-to-list, BTW...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:20:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:20:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132120.l1DLKtuI012455@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 16:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > MUST: > > The provides should be (without <): > > Provides: owanttask = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} > > Fixed. Great! > > > Since with_bootstrap option is added, you'll need to define a value for the > > variable. > > I'll check the following when the spec file is updated, and rpms rebuilt from > > that spec file. > > Fixed. Defined it to 1. It's now set to 0 for bootstrapping build for the first time. I've built it in mock successfully, rpmlint on the current src and binary rpms: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/objectweb-anttask-javadoc-1.3.2-1jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm W: objectweb-anttask non-standard-group Development/Java W: objectweb-anttask-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: objectweb-anttask non-standard-group Development/Java APPROVED. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:24:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:24:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228296] Review Request: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132124.l1DLOQTV012768@bugzilla.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: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228296 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-13 16:24 EST ------- Adding the extra docs is a nice idea, however they currently suffer from genericish SourceX file names. Prefix them by %{name}-* (in SRPM, not when installed)? About licensing, LGPL section 3 says: "You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License." I'm not 100% sure what that means in practical terms, but it sounds to me as if the license info should be changed not only in the License tag, but also the C source file as well as PKG-INFO, and possibly the newly added changes. Or at least add a note somewhere prominent about the change (separate file installed as %doc or something). What do you think? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:27:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:27:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132127.l1DLRCsk012984@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-13 16:27 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > only-non-binary-in-usr-lib is ok, because the yum-plugins has to go into > /usr/lib/yum-plugins. Wouldn't /usr/share/yum-plugins be a more appropriate location for them? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:28:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:28:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132128.l1DLSZUb013117@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From jafo-redhat at tummy.com 2007-02-13 16:28 EST ------- Thanks Mamoru, I've built new packages with your build flags. SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin-0.3-6.src.rpm Spec URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/moto4lin.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:30:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227070] Review Request: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132130.l1DLUFn5013260@bugzilla.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: jflex-1.3.5-2jpp - Fast Scanner Generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227070 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-13 16:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > > ... > > > > X correct buildroot > > > > - should be: > > > > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > > > done > > > > > Thanks. > > > > * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > > > > locations) > > There's an extra . before %{?dist} > Oops, fixed. > Great! > > > > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > > > > COPYRIGHT missing from %doc > > > done > > > > > It's now in the doc subpackage, but I think it should stay in the main package > > with a %doc flag in the %files section. > There is no doc subpackage, the doc files are being marked with %doc in the main > package's %file section. > Sorry.. read it incorrectly earlier. > > > > ... > > > > X specfile is legible > > > > - Get rid of Vendor and Distribution tag > > > done > > > > > Thanks > > > > - Source0 should be: > http://downloads.sourceforge.net/jflex/jflex-1.3.5.tar.gz > > > done > > Thanks > > > > > > > - Fix release 2jpp.1%{?dist} > > > done > > > > > Please note no . after 1. > > > > ... > > > > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > > > > line 89 is longer than 80 characters > > > done > > > > > Great > > > >... > > > > * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > > > > W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > > > W: jflex wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/jflex-1.3.5/COPYRIGHT > > > > W: jflex uncompressed-zip /usr/share/java/jflex-1.3.5.jar > > > > W: jflex-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > > > W: jflex-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > > > > W: jflex-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > > > No warnings or errors other than about groups (which can be safely ignored) > > > > > > New spec file can be found here: > > > https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/209/jflex.spec > > > > > > New srpm can be found here: > > > > > > https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/210/jflex-1.3.5-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm > > > > rpmlint now gives: > > W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > W: jflex incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.3.5-2jpp.1 0:1.3.5-2jpp.1. > > W: jflex uncompressed-zip /usr/share/java/jflex-1.3.5.jar > > W: jflex-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > hmm, not getting the uncompressed-zip on my version. > I'm not seeing this anymore as well. > The spec file and srpm has been updated to the same location > > > I've built it successfully in mock, rpmlint on the final src and binary rpms gives: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jflex-1.3.5-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jflex-1.3.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jflex-javadoc-1.3.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jflex non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jflex-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation APPROVED. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:30:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:30:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227092] Review Request: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132130.l1DLUJcd013295@bugzilla.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: piccolo-1.04-2jpp - Small fast XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227092 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-13 16:30 EST ------- APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:31:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:31:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225365] Review Request: perl-File-Next - File-finding iterator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132131.l1DLVVGa013430@bugzilla.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-Next - File-finding iterator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225365 ianburrell at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From ianburrell at gmail.com 2007-02-13 16:31 EST ------- Built for FC-5, FC-6, devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:31:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:31:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132131.l1DLVfgJ013456@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 Bug 225368 depends on bug 225365, which changed state. Bug 225365 Summary: Review Request: perl-File-Next - File-finding iterator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225365 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:32:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:32:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225364] Review Request: perl-App-CLI - Dispatcher module for command line interface programs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132132.l1DLWhWE013622@bugzilla.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-App-CLI - Dispatcher module for command line interface programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225364 ianburrell at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From ianburrell at gmail.com 2007-02-13 16:32 EST ------- Built for FC-5, FC-6, devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:33:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:33:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225366] Review Request: perl-Module-Depends - Identify the dependencies of a distribution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132133.l1DLX2w2013652@bugzilla.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-Depends - Identify the dependencies of a distribution https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225366 ianburrell at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From ianburrell at gmail.com 2007-02-13 16:33 EST ------- Built for FC-5, FC-6, devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:33:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225367] Review Request: perl-Path-Class - Cross-platform path specification manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132133.l1DLXSKv013699@bugzilla.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-Path-Class - Cross-platform path specification manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225367 ianburrell at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From ianburrell at gmail.com 2007-02-13 16:33 EST ------- Built for FC-5, FC-6, devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:35:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:35:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132135.l1DLZm0u013894@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 ------- Additional Comments From rcritten at redhat.com 2007-02-13 16:35 EST ------- At first glance it is strange that lm_sensors-devel is required. This is needed for the SNMP agent per the output of net-snmp-config --agent-libs. Perhaps a comment should be added to this effect to avoid further head scratching. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:39:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:39:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227115] Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132139.l1DLdMnZ014119@bugzilla.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: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227115 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:39:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:39:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132139.l1DLdwga014155@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-13 16:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Partial review: > > BLOCKERS: > * No upstream tarball to compare with included tarball (MUST item) Fedora is the upstream for this, our preferred method of distribution is srpm. For this reason there is no "upstream" tarball. I do believe there are guidelines being proposed to make this acceptable. > * Version of source (6) doesn't match package version (6.90) This has already been fixed. > * Description field is the same as summary field. How is this a blocker? > * Licensing is quite varied and contradictory: > - The License field mentions GFDL, while no mention of such a license exists > in the tarball contents. I changed this to GPL > - The tarball contains a copy of GPL, while no file in the package is actually > licensed under the GPL either. The eula.py file is GPL now. > - The license for the program "eula.py" is not mentioned in its header, making > it proprietary software. Fixed this. > - The file "README-Accessibility" in the package says "Copyright ? 2003 by > Red Hat, Inc." (no mention of license, free or not) This file isn't packaged anymore, removing it. > - The file "eula.txt" in the package says "Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, > 2006 Fedora Project. All rights reserved." (definitely not free) and also > mentions a few trademarks. > * The file "eula.txt" mentions weird things: > - It says there is something called "Fedora Core". What is that? ;-) > - It talks about "Fedora Core 6". But it's for "Fedora 7 test-something" or > "Fedora Rawhide" or something. > - It says that "The end user license agreement for each component is located > in the component's source code." Rarely true. Instead, the source code > usually contains a copyright license (like the GPL, which free software > usually has), not an end user license agreement (which proprietary software > usually has). > - It says that except "certain image files containing the Fedora trademark", > the license terms allow one to "[...] modify, and redistribute the > component". Not always true, considering packages that are only > "Distributable". Not always true because of Section 5 either. > - It talks about a package named "anaconda-images", which does not exist in > Fedora anymore. > - In its Section 5, it requires things from users in Pakistan and basically > asks them to "represent and warrant" that they will not help their > neighbor[ing countries] and ask the US government for > permission for giving a copy of the software (parts of which he may have > written himself) to his friend, among other things. > - I totally prefer licenses that say "You are not required to accept this > License, since you have not signed it" (from GPL clause 5), instead of those > who say "By downloading, installing or using the Software, User agrees to > the terms of this agreement." Who has written this anyway? ;-) > - /me escapes > I'm not touching the eula.txt. This comes straight from our Legal team. Best bring it up to the Fedora Advisory Board and have it be an item to discuss with Legal. > SUGGESTIONS: > * "fedora-release-6" or a part of it could become a macro. At the minimum could > be replace with "%{name}-6". > * Use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc > * Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share Too much of our stuff is hardcoded to depend on these things being in /etc, it doesn't make sense to macroize it in the spec. > * Use "cp -p" and "install -p" instead of "cp" and "install" everywhere Fixed (use install -d instead of mkdir) > * Use "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" instead of "%defattr(-,root,root)" Fixed. http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/fedora-release.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:42:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:42:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132142.l1DLgMrj014275@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-13 16:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Is fedora-release-notes really required by this package? > http://martin.hates-software.com/2007/02/03/fb463e68.html fedora-release-notes was split out of fedora-release during FC5 I think, maybe 6. This allowed for the docs folks to work on the release notes easier. However we need to have the Requires so that folks upgrading don't lose the relesae notes, and yes, we'd generally like the release notes to always be there and not have to be specifically asked for. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:43:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:43:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132143.l1DLhshC014377@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 ------- Additional Comments From rmeggins at redhat.com 2007-02-13 16:43 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > At first glance it is strange that lm_sensors-devel is required. This is needed > for the SNMP agent per the output of net-snmp-config --agent-libs. There is some header file pulled in by compiling the snmp code/agent in fedora ds that requires a header file provided by lm_sensors-devel. > Perhaps a comment should be added to this effect to avoid further head scratching. Where? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:44:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:44:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] New: Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator 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=228591 Summary: Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: wolters.liste at gmx.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~p1woro/fedorarpms/speedcrunch.specSRPM URL: http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~p1woro/fedorarpms/speedcrunch-0.7-beta2.1.src.rpm Description: (From the homepage) SpeedCrunch is a fast, high precision and powerful desktop calculator. Few of its distinctive features are: *scrollable display *up to 50 decimal precisions *unlimited variable storage *intelligent automatic completion *full keyboard-friendly *more than 15 built-in math function *optional keypad It is supposed to replace kcalc in KDE in Fedora 7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:52:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:52:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132152.l1DLqRLc015315@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 ------- Additional Comments From rcritten at redhat.com 2007-02-13 16:52 EST ------- I stand corrected, there IS a comment in the spec to this effect. I missed it in the ifarch. Ignore me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:51:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:51:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132151.l1DLpTob015183@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 ------- Additional Comments From jbowes at redhat.com 2007-02-13 16:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > Wouldn't /usr/share/yum-plugins be a more appropriate location for them? Probably. I'll bring it up on yum-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:47:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:47:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132147.l1DLlLeb014692@bugzilla.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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:47:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:47:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228544] Review Request: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132147.l1DLlebW014727@bugzilla.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: keepalived - HA monitor built upon LVS, VRRP and services poller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228544 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |163778 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-13 16:47 EST ------- And finally I have updated my rawhide mirror and here is the result from a mock rebuild: gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -I/lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2922.fc7/build/include -I../include -I../../lib -Wall -Wunused -Wstrict-prototypes -D_KRNL_2_6_ -D_WITHOUT_LINKWATCH_ -D_WITH_LVS_ -D_HAVE_IPVS_SYNCD_ -c vrrp_netlink.c gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -I/lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2922.fc7/build/include -I../include -I../../lib -Wall -Wunused -Wstrict-prototypes -D_KRNL_2_6_ -D_WITHOUT_LINKWATCH_ -D_WITH_LVS_ -D_HAVE_IPVS_SYNCD_ -c vrrp_arp.c In file included from /usr/include/net/ethernet.h:26, from ../include/vrrp_arp.h:29, from vrrp_arp.c:29: /usr/include/sys/types.h:62: error: conflicting types for 'dev_t' /lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2922.fc7/build/include/linux/types.h:22: error: previous declaration of 'dev_t' was here /usr/include/sys/types.h:67: error: conflicting types for 'gid_t' /lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2922.fc7/build/include/linux/types.h:54: error: previous declaration of 'gid_t' was here /usr/include/sys/types.h:72: error: conflicting types for 'mode_t' /lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2922.fc7/build/include/linux/types.h:24: error: previous declaration of 'mode_t' was here /usr/include/sys/types.h:77: error: conflicting types for 'nlink_t' /lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2922.fc7/build/include/linux/types.h:25: error: previous declaration of 'nlink_t' was here /usr/include/sys/types.h:82: error: conflicting types for 'uid_t' /lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2922.fc7/build/include/linux/types.h:53: error: previous declaration of 'uid_t' was here In file included from /usr/include/sys/types.h:133, from /usr/include/net/ethernet.h:26, from ../include/vrrp_arp.h:29, from vrrp_arp.c:29: /usr/include/time.h:105: error: conflicting types for 'timer_t' /lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2922.fc7/build/include/linux/types.h:31: error: previous declaration of 'timer_t' was here In file included from /usr/include/sys/types.h:220, from /usr/include/net/ethernet.h:26, from ../include/vrrp_arp.h:29, from vrrp_arp.c:29: /usr/include/sys/select.h:78: error: conflicting types for 'fd_set' /lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2922.fc7/build/include/linux/types.h:21: error: previous declaration of 'fd_set' was here In file included from /usr/include/net/ethernet.h:26, from ../include/vrrp_arp.h:29, from vrrp_arp.c:29: /usr/include/sys/types.h:235: error: conflicting types for 'blkcnt_t' /lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2922.fc7/build/include/linux/types.h:152: error: previous declaration of 'blkcnt_t' was here vrrp_netlink.c: In function 'netlink_socket': vrrp_netlink.c:89: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 3 of 'getsockname' differ in signedness vrrp_arp.c: In function 'send_gratuitous_arp': vrrp_arp.c:84: warning: pointer targets in initialization differ in signedness make[2]: *** [vrrp_arp.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/keepalived-1.1.13/keepalived/vrrp' make[1]: *** [all] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/keepalived-1.1.13/keepalived' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.83976 (%build) This needs to be fixed too. So the approval is on hold. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 21:56:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:56:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132156.l1DLuOuh015593@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 ville.skytta at iki.fi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rvokal at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-13 16:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > At first glance it is strange that lm_sensors-devel is required. This is needed > for the SNMP agent per the output of net-snmp-config --agent-libs. Sounds like something that should be fixed in net-snmp-devel instead of propagating kludges to dependent packages, by adding "Requires: lm_sensors-devel" to it on appropriate architectures. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 22:16:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:16:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132216.l1DMGCDW016872@bugzilla.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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-13 17:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > ============================== > > RPMLINT OUTPUT FOR SOURCE RPM: > > ============================== > > > > W: dom2-core-tests non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > Ignoring since groups can apparently be arbitrary > > > W: dom2-core-tests invalid-license W3C Software License > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/W3C.php suggests license is OSI approved > Using W3C License in this field > > > W: dom2-core-tests rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > Removed > > > W: dom2-core-tests mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 42) > Fixed > > > W: dom2-core-tests class-path-in-manifest /dom2-core-tests-20040405.jar > Ignoring since these are mandated by package build process > > > =============================== > > RPMLINT OUTPUT FOR BINARY RPMS: > > =============================== > > > > dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp.noarch.rpm: > > ------------------------------------------------- > > W: dom2-core-tests non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > Ignoring since groups can apparently be arbitrary > > W: dom2-core-tests invalid license W3C Software license > See above > > W: dom2-core-tests no-documentation > There doesnt seem to be anything in the build directory to use for doc, can we > waive this? > > > dom2-core-tests-javadoc-00,01-0.20040405-1jpp.noarch.rpm: > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > W: dom2-core-tests-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > Ignore as above > > > W: dom2-core-tests-javadoc invalid-license W3C Software License > Changed to W3C License > > > W: dom2-core-tests-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > > w: dom2-core-tests-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > Removed the use of post and postun scripts > > > - Fix %Release tag. > Fixed > > > > - Remove %Vendor and &Distribution. > > > > - Add "-%(%{__id_u} -n)" to the end of %BuildRoot. > > > > - In the future, when adding gcj support, remove %BuildArch. > > > Fixed > > > - Change the changelog entry format. Ralph's email should read > > "". > > > I think the guidelines are more particular about the location of ENVR in the > changelog. Great. I think there may be a minor bug in %changelog because rpmlint now generates the following warning when run on dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1.i386.rpm: W: dom2-core-tests incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1.fc7 1:0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1 Could you have a look at this? Also, there seem to be a couple of lines with more than 80 characters. I didn't know this was a must, which is why I didn't mention anything previously. Could you also have a look at that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 22:22:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:22:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227091] Review Request: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132222.l1DMM7Z3017249@bugzilla.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: objectweb-anttask-1.3.2-1jpp - ObjectWeb Ant task https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227091 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 22:28:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:28:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227717] Review Request: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132228.l1DMS7XO017612@bugzilla.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: gimmie - Gnome panel revisited https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227717 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-13 17:27 EST ------- The issue in comment #10 has been fixed, and package built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 22:28:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:28:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227719] Review Request: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132228.l1DMSen5017685@bugzilla.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: gpixpod - An ipod photo organizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227719 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 22:34:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:34:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225710] Merge Review: dtach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132234.l1DMYi6b018493@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dtach https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225710 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-13 17:34 EST ------- dtach-0.7-1.2.3 APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 22:36:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:36:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227069] Review Request: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132236.l1DMacq3018741@bugzilla.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: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227069 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 17:36 EST ------- MUST: X package is named appropriately . release should be of the form 0.Z.tag.Xjpp.Y%{?dist} * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this X license field matches the actual license. . according to their website, it's Apache-style * license is open source-compatible. X specfile name matches %{name} . specfile should be jaxen-bootstrap.spec X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) . where do the xsl and xml files come from? . we should note why dom4j is needed * summary and description fine X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X %{?dist} needs to be added X license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output W: jaxen-bootstrap non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java . fine W: jaxen-bootstrap invalid-license Open Source X fix this W: jaxen-bootstrap unversioned-explicit-provides jaxen-bootstrap . I think this is an unnecessary provide W: jaxen-bootstrap rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT . get rid of the rm -rf line at the beginning of prep ... E: jaxen-bootstrap no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ... and add it to the beginning of %install W: jaxen-bootstrap mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 37) X fix this (emacs M-x untabify) * changelog in okay format X Vendor tag should not be used X Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * no PreReqs * specfile is legible X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 . I need xom to build this package ? BuildRequires are proper . I'll have to wait to build this to ensure this * summary is a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * does not use %makeinstall * no locale data ? consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps (%prep line 4 * no Requires(pre,post) * package is not be relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean present * %doc files should not affect runtime (N/A until licence added) * not a web app X final provides and requires of the binary RPMs . remove unnecessary Provides: %{name}? . I will do the rest when I can build it X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . I will when I can build it SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc X package should build on i386 X package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 22:39:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:39:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227069] Review Request: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132239.l1DMd1KG018961@bugzilla.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: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227069 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-13 17:38 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148022) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148022&action=view) patch that fixes a lot of issues in the spec I can't verify everything because I can't build it yet due to not having xom. I'm also continuing to investigate the source of the xsl and xml files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 22:55:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:55:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132255.l1DMtgXx019647@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 ------- Additional Comments From michael_e_brown at dell.com 2007-02-13 17:55 EST ------- New version posted. http://linux.dell.com/libsmbios/download/libsmbios/libsmbios-0.13.2/libsmbios.spec http://linux.dell.com/libsmbios/download/libsmbios/libsmbios-0.13.2/libsmbios-0.13.2-1.fc6.src.rpm All of the above changes have been implemented. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:14:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:14:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132314.l1DNEOno020483@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-13 18:14 EST ------- I think the phar has been updated to 1.5.0 now, please verify. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:17:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:17:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228479] Review Request: hunspell-hr - Croatian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132317.l1DNH5fU020704@bugzilla.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: hunspell-hr - Croatian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228479 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 18:17 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 60fa001543ab9e67f20fcc68c358c62f81e006ac hr_HR.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license LGPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just a 2 liner specifying that the license is dual, LGPL/SISSL - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED SHOULD: please ask upstream to include the actual license file in the archive -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:27:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:27:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221054] Review Request: gerbv - A gerber file viewer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132327.l1DNR8qB021254@bugzilla.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: gerbv - A gerber file viewer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221054 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-13 18:27 EST ------- You should also fix the desktop file --- rpmbuild/SOURCES/gerbv-1.0.2/desktop/gerbv.desktop 2006-07-26 09:35:40.000000000 +0200 +++ /usr/share/applications/gerbv.desktop 2007-02-13 23:47:19.000000000 +0100 @@ -7,4 +7,5 @@ Type=Application Exec=gerbv Icon=gerbv -Categories=Education;Electronics;Engineering; +Categories=Qt;KDE;Education;Science;Engineering; see how it can be done in your spec file with desktop-file-utils instead of the patch: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DesktopFiles (easy fix) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:19:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:19:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132319.l1DNJowg020773@bugzilla.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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-13 18:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Great. I think there may be a minor bug in %changelog because rpmlint now > generates the following warning when run on > dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1.i386.rpm: > W: dom2-core-tests incoherent-version-in-changelog > 1:0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1.fc7 1:0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1 > Could you have a look at this? I think you might have tried to rebuild the srpm without a rpmbuild --define "%dist .fc7" which is why it complained. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:30:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:30:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228481] Review Request: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132330.l1DNUo54021431@bugzilla.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: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228481 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 18:30 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 034cafefbb6d912c28e15d6fe45e0dbe01e16fbf hu_HU_comb.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - no need for -docs as the only doc is just a 3 liner text file - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file NEEDFIX - the license LGPL stated in the tag is NOT the same as the web site says (GPL, see http://ftp.services.openoffice.org/pub/OpenOffice.org/contrib/dictionaries/README_hu_HU.txt). APPROVED, but please fix the license tag before importing. Please also ask upstream to include the license file in the archive -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:30:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:30:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132330.l1DNUujM021458@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-13 18:30 EST ------- uhm just dropping the executable bit from /usr/bin/aspell-import is inappropriate. If you are going to drop the executable perms, then you should make it a doc file. Its acceptable to include non-critical helper scripts or example scripts as part of the documentation as non-executable files. If you want to leave it in the executable path, leave the script with executable permissions, and put it in its own subpackage named something aspell-utils or aspell-import or the like. Enrico's comment seems to suggest to me that he prefers the subpackage approach. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:34:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:34:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132334.l1DNY610021574@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-13 18:34 EST ------- Issues: * Builroot is not right * In general textutils shouldn't be in Requires. Which program is it for? * info files should be compressed automatically * remove summary end dot * install-info scriptlets are missing * gawk and perl seems to be BuildRequires. perl may be omitted. suggestions: * the indenting of the beginning of the spec looks bad because there are spaces and tabs. * I think that BuildArch is prefered over BuildArchitectures * use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) for consistency * having a / at the end of a directory in %files shows visually that it is indeed a directory: %{_datadir}/autoconf-%{version}/ * maybe the testsuite could be run? Remark: * make install DESTDIR=.. is preferred over %makeinstall, but here it seems that there is no support for DESTDIR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:39:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:39:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228481] Review Request: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132339.l1DNdtTk021744@bugzilla.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: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228481 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 18:39 EST ------- I think that you should also fix upstreamid, the web page at http://tkltrans.sourceforge.net/tklspell/ says hu_HU_comb.zip 21-Aug-2006 03:23, which differs from the one that you have used (05-nov-2006). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:47:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:47:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228483] Review Request: hunspell-it - Italian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132347.l1DNlGfj022062@bugzilla.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: hunspell-it - Italian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228483 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 18:47 EST ------- Cosmetic: you could dump %define upstreamid 20060731 since you are not using it. GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum a20e97120fc4c9a57a99473317ca378bac9770f1 italiano_2_3_beta_2006_07_23.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says and is included in the package - the package includes only 2 files (word lists) + several small text files, so no need for separate -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:56:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:56:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228484] Review Request: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132356.l1DNuP4B022546@bugzilla.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: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228484 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 18:56 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, is the last available version , sha1sum adbd9ce3c1655ecb524d79d98a4c4c0c6691a76f lt_LT-1.1+cvs20061127.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license BSD stated in the tag is the same as the web site says; it is not included in the package because upstream did not include it either - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file SHOULD: please ask upstream to include the license file (they reference it in README.EN but they did not include it) I think that it would not hurt to include the INSTRUCIJOS.TXT file, too in %doc APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 13 23:57:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:57:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228484] Review Request: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702132357.l1DNv0v6022634@bugzilla.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: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228484 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 00:09:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:09:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228488] Review Request: hunspell-ms - Malay hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140009.l1E09Qoc023202@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ms - Malay hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228488 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 19:09 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 12c033608d031ded21219757ac26f3b5bc0d37d7 ms_MY.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license ( GFDL ) stated in the tag is the same as the web site and an included txt file say; it is not included in the package because upstream did not include it either - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file SHOULD: please ask upstream to include the license in the archive; I think that it would be a good idea if you could persuade them to hink again about the license they use, as GFDL seems a bit restrictive and is not very "loved" in Fedora (and Debian...) APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 00:16:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:16:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228489] Review Request: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140016.l1E0GIRD023606@bugzilla.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: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228489 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 19:16 EST ------- upstreamid (and therefore version) is wrong, should be either 08-may-2006 (zip file date) or 28-apr-2006 (date of included files) GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum bcc117e0b31b6284346ce7beba9149176a6492ee nb_NO.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site and the included documentation say; not included in the package because upstream did not include it either - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED but please fix the version before uploading to CVS; you should also ask upstream to include the license in the archive -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 00:24:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:24:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140024.l1E0OalD023862@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2007-02-13 19:24 EST ------- I would even prefer a yet more radical splitting: * a -lib package with content of /usr/lib/aspell-0.60, the libs and the .mo files * move the precat, preunzip, prezip, prezip-bin and word-list-compress binaries either into -devel (afais, they are only used to create dictionaries), or into a new -utils subpackage * move 'aspell-import' into -utils * keep aspell, ispell, run-with-aspell, spell and related man pages in main package. 'aspell' adds a ncurses dep which is not needed by -libs * at first glance, 'aspell.info' contains end user information only and should stay in main and does not need to be moved into -lib ======= Other issues: * remove the explicit 'Requires: aspell-en'; I am pretty sure that my mom will never have use for the english dictionary but uses the german one only * are all the 'Conflicts:' really required for a recent system? * the | Provides: pspell < 0.13 | Obsoletes: pspell < 0.13 does not seem to make sense; either write 'Provides: pspell = 0.13', or remove it completely. Ditto for -devel * the | Requires(pre): /sbin/install-info is wrong and should be 'Requires(post)' * /sbin/ldconfig MUST be required * afair, there was a rule, that Summary: must not begin with 'A'. * the 'exit 0' in the scriptlets does not make sense -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 00:25:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:25:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228490] Review Request: hunspell-nl - Dutch hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140025.l1E0PFoE023904@bugzilla.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: hunspell-nl - Dutch hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228490 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 19:25 EST ------- upstreamid is wrong, should be 20-Jul-2005 (archive date) or 17/19-Jul-2005 (files' date) GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 9f5432aeb20ab7e9a3c72877b71056a33b2bd9ba nl_NL.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site and the included documentation say; it is not included in the package because upstream did not include it either - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED but please fix the version before uploading to CVS; you should also ask upstream to include the GPL license in the archive -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 00:26:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:26:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222522] Review Request: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140026.l1E0Qu43024005@bugzilla.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: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222522 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 19:26 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this package. Here's a review: OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 712b21f0354d4f890a02da4f8763768b aqbanking-2.1.0.tar.gz 712b21f0354d4f890a02da4f8763768b aqbanking-2.1.0.tar.gz.1 See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. See below - Should have dist tag See below - Should package latest version 3 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Minor: Could include COPYING file? Also, possibly: AUTHORS Changelog NEWS README TODO 2. Possibly a missing BuildRequires: checking for AccountNumberCheck_new in -lktoblzcheck... no checking ktoblzcheck.h usability... no checking ktoblzcheck.h presence... no checking for ktoblzcheck.h... no 3. According to the COPYING file: "The banking backend "AqYellowNet" is currently only available binary-only because of a nondisclosure agreement." So, should this code just be removed from the source package entirely? I don't think it's being shipped/linked, but the .so is still in the source. 4. rpmlint says: a) E: aqbanking obsolete-not-provided aqhbci E: aqbanking-devel obsolete-not-provided aqhbci-devel E: qbanking obsolete-not-provided aqhbci-qt-tools Suggest: As mentioned earlier in this review, these can probibly be ignored if it's unlikely that these packages will ever come back at a later time. b) E: aqbanking zero-length /usr/share/aqbanking/bankinfo/us/bic.idx E: aqbanking-devel zero-length /usr/share/doc/aqbanking-devel-2.1.0/01-OVERVIEW Suggest: Could possibly remove these? Or ping upstream about it. c) W: g2banking no-documentation W: g2banking-devel no-documentation W: kbanking no-documentation W: kbanking-devel no-documentation W: python-aqbanking no-documentation W: qbanking no-documentation W: qbanking-devel no-documentation Suggest: ignore. 5. Minor: use dist tag? 6. This is an old version... upstream is at 2.2.8. Any reason not to upgrade to that version? 7. 3 outstanding bugs, might look at the multilib conflicts and see if they are solveable at this time? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 00:28:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:28:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225286] Merge Review: aspell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140028.l1E0SgHs024060@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225286 ------- Additional Comments From enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de 2007-02-13 19:28 EST ------- the | PATH=/usr/lib/aspell-0.60:/usr/lib64/aspell-0.60:$PATH line in /usr/bin/run-with-aspell looks suspicious on my i386 system. Last line | exec $@ should be | exec "$@" too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 00:38:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:38:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140038.l1E0cZra024466@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-13 19:38 EST ------- All problems seem fixed. Package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 00:56:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:56:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] New: Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects 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=228627 Summary: Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Acme-Damn/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Acme-Damn-0.03-1.fc6.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Acme-Damn.spec Description: Acme::Damn provides a single routine, damn(), which takes a blessed reference (a Perl object), and unblesses it, to return the original reference. I can't think of any reason why you might want to do this, but just because it's of no use doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 00:56:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:56:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140056.l1E0uiIs024941@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |163776 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 01:00:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140100.l1E10HM9025037@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-13 20:00 EST ------- Package imported to cvs and devel package built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 01:41:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:41:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140141.l1E1flYi026101@bugzilla.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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 01:55:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:55:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225778] Merge Review: gcc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140155.l1E1t4ZI026450@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gcc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225778 toshio at tiki-lounge.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-13 20:55 EST ------- The proposal was accepted by the packaging committee. Officially this has to wait a week for people in Core nad Extras to raise potential problems and veto the proposal. If that doesn't occur then this guideline change will be approved. I think the logic is pretty sound so I'm removing the FE-GUIDELINES blocker bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 01:55:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:55:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197974] Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140155.l1E1tQEJ026487@bugzilla.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: Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines Alias: FE-GUIDELINES https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197974 toshio at tiki-lounge.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn|225778 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 02:01:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:01:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227089] Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140201.l1E21uOZ026673@bugzilla.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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |vivekl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-13 21:01 EST ------- I am taking this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 02:26:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:26:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140226.l1E2QgNV027520@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-13 21:26 EST ------- I've posted bug #228628 for the selinux-policy modification, and moved the chcon call to the %post scriptlet. (Thanks for the information regarding RPM context management.) Updated files are on my webspace: Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SPECs/nemiver.spec SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SRPMs/nemiver-0.3.0-5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 02:43:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:43:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140243.l1E2hRmJ027881@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From zhu at redhat.com 2007-02-13 21:43 EST ------- OK, I will add ncurses-devel. What does add disttag mean? The build root is right in my system, in Makefile.am: install-exec-local: chmod 4755 $(DESTDIR)$(bindir)/zhcon It should already be right, I don't know why it don't work on your system, can you tell me how to modify it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 02:52:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:52:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140252.l1E2qdaI028233@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |twaugh at redhat.com CC| |kevin at tummy.com ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 21:52 EST ------- Hey Michael. Thanks for helping out reviewing. :) I typically use a template to check things, just to make sure I don't miss anything. Feel free to use my template at: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/KevinFenzi/ReviewTemplate You might also want to look at: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags Which is the current review method we are using for these reviews. A few things that jump out at me looking at this: 1. %makeinstall is used. Can 'make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install' be used instead? See the wiki for reasons why %makeinstall is bad. 2. Does the: # Remove these old glibc files on upgrade (bug #84090). still apply? I can't read that bug, so its hard to tell. 3. Minor: The Source files should really have 'coreutils-' in front of them. If you install this src.rpm and want to gather the files from SOURCES it's anoying to do so. 4. Is it worth trying to fix bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211615 To fix the loop between pam and coreutils as part of this cleanup/review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 02:59:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:59:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225906] Merge Review: iptables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140259.l1E2xEE8028409@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: iptables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225906 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 21:59 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 03:38:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:38:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140338.l1E3cDWq030249@bugzilla.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: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-13 22:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > Ralf or Jason, do you want to continue this review, or you gave up? This review request simply got swept away and drowned in this tsunami of review mails. Technically, I recall me having wanted to investigate an issue I suspect this package to suffer from, but I haven't gotten around to it, yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 03:40:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:40:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225906] Merge Review: iptables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140340.l1E3e7Dg030424@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: iptables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225906 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 22:40 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: dd965bdacbb86ce2a6498829fddda6b7 iptables-1.3.7.tar.bz2 dd965bdacbb86ce2a6498829fddda6b7 iptables-1.3.7.tar.bz2.1 See below - BuildRequires correct See below - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. See below - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun See below - .so files in -devel subpackage. See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. See below - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. See below - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 21 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. The Source URL is no longer correct. Suggest: http://www.netfilter.org/projects/iptables/files/iptables-1.3.7.tar.bz2 2. Can the Prefix: %{_prefix} be removed? Is there any reason this package needs to be relocatable? 3. Minor: The BuildRequires: /usr/bin/perl isn't required, as perl is part of the default build root. 4. Is the %defattr(-,root,root,0755) needed? or will %defattr(-,root,root,-) work? 5. Use the default correct buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 6. Any reason the package makes a static lib instead of a shared lib? Does anything use iptables-devel? Might be nice to remove the .a and make a shared lib instead. 7. The devel and ipv6 subpackages have Requires: %{name} = %{version} Suggest: change that to: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 8. Our buddy rpmlint says: a) W: iptables summary-ended-with-dot Tools for managing Linux kernel packet filtering capabilities. Suggest: remove . at end of summary. b) E: iptables tag-not-utf8 %changelog Looks like the checkins from Trond Eivind Glomsrd are not proper ut8f. Suggest: Change to utf8. c) W: iptables strange-permission iptables.init 0755 Suggest: change the source file permissions to 644 and install it as 755 only when installing? d) E: iptables non-utf8-spec-file iptables.spec The encoding of the entire spec is not utf8. Suggest: run iconv on it? e) E: iptables broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires Requires(post,postun): chkconfig There was a rpm bug that made that syntax not work right. Suggest: Change to: Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig f) W: iptables redundant-prefix-tag Suggest: remove prefix. g) W: iptables rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf %{buildroot} Suggest: remove rm in prep stage. It's not needed here. h) W: iptables macro-in-%changelog postun W: iptables macro-in-%changelog preun Suggest: Change any %macro names in changelog to be %%macro so rpm doesn't try and expand them. i) E: iptables no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install Suggest: add the rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT here. j) W: iptables conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables Suggest: No need to mark the init script as a config file. k) E: iptables non-readable /etc/sysconfig/iptables-config 0600 I guess this can be ignored. Not sure how much security it provides however. l) W: iptables service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables Normally this is a no-no, but in this case I think we do want it enabled by default. m) W: iptables no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/iptables reload doesn't make sense here. n) W: iptables-devel spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/iptables.h W: iptables-devel spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/ip6tables.h W: iptables-devel spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/iptables_common.h Suggest: Those headers should be mode 644. o) E: iptables-ipv6 executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables See item l above... should probibly not be a config file. p) W: iptables-ipv6 service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables W: iptables-ipv6 no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/ip6tables W: iptables-ipv6 incoherent-init-script-name ip6tables Ignore. 9. Minor: Consider adding a dist tag? 10. 21 outstanding bugs. None appear to be directly packaging related. However, there are some high priority ones and the secmark bug should would be very nice to solve before f7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 04:05:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:05:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228293] Review Request: gkrellm-moon - Moon clock plugin for GKrellM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140405.l1E45tIH031986@bugzilla.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: gkrellm-moon - Moon clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228293 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 23:05 EST ------- OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 0e30da51526d68cbce146ea2bdd9b685 gkrellmoon-0.6.tar.gz 0e30da51526d68cbce146ea2bdd9b685 gkrellmoon-0.6.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Default permissions are: %defattr(-, root, root, 0755) Is that needed, or can it be changed to: %defattr(-, root, root, -) 2. Can you please use the one true build root(tm): %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 04:06:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:06:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225604] Review Request: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140406.l1E46dM0032068@bugzilla.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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 miker5slow at grandecom.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 04:15:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:15:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228294] Review Request: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140415.l1E4F6mV032569@bugzilla.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: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228294 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-13 23:14 EST ------- OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: fbbf5c23a3966b2e16a2bab19a0885b7 gkrellsun-1.0.0.tar.gz fbbf5c23a3966b2e16a2bab19a0885b7 gkrellsun-1.0.0.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Default perms are %defattr(-, root, root, 0755) Can that be changed to: %defattr(-, root, root, -) 2. Please use the one true build root(tm): %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 04:20:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:20:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140420.l1E4KYIW000440@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 04:32:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:32:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140432.l1E4WU09001383@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-13 23:32 EST ------- mock build is fine. got rpmlint warning as W: perl-Acme-Damn summary-not-capitalized 'Unbless' Perl objects Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 04:34:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:34:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227041] Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140434.l1E4YP4l001552@bugzilla.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: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227041 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-13 23:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > rpmlint bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp.src.rpm: > W: bea-stax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Group warnings ignored Ignore > W: bea-stax invalid-license Apache Software License 2 Fixed > W: bea-stax mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51) Fixed > > rpmlint rpms: > W: bea-stax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Group warnings ignored > W: bea-stax invalid-license Apache Software License 2 fixed reverted to ASL > W: bea-stax no-documentation > W: bea-stax-api summary-ended-with-dot The StAX API. > W: bea-stax-api non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: bea-stax-api no-documentation > W: bea-stax-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: bea-stax-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Fixed by removing post postun magic for javadoc handling and adding a proper owned unversioned directory > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > X - release tag does not follow guidelines > X - all jpp packages need to have %{?dist} added at the end Fixed - 0:1.2.0-0.1.rc1.2jpp.1%{?dist} now > X not a proper license tag, remove the '2' Done > > * specfile name matches %{name} > * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > > X source md5sums match, but project is no longer on project website > should probably change source link to the following, where the package still > exists > http://dist.codehaus.org/stax/distributions/stax-src-1.2.0_rc1-dev.zip Done, thanks for the URL > X buildroot does not follow fedora guidelines > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Done > X dist not used, but needs to be added since jpp package > > * license text included in package and marked with %doc > X license test not included in package Fixed, added ASF2.0.txt from the source tar ball > * Packager tag should not be used > X this should be removed > > * Vendor tag should not be used > X this should be removed Fixed > X too many commented lines Fixed. > > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > * BuildRequires are proper > X missing build requires. This package is at very least missing ant Package builds on mock so I assume this is fixed :) Package available at: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/bea-stax/bea-stax-1.2.0-0.1.rc1.2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm Spec: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/bea-stax/bea-stax.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 04:59:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:59:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140459.l1E4xqmx003609@bugzilla.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: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-13 23:59 EST ------- OK, the issues I mentioned above don't seem to have actual side-effects: * Diffing the log of a mock-built against a user-built: ... -checking for java... no +checking for java... java checking for javac... no ... checking whether compiler accepts -Werror... no => Looks like a bug in the configure script to me. ... -checking dynamic linker characteristics... cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory -GNU/Linux ld.so +checking dynamic linker characteristics... GNU/Linux ld.so => Probably a buggy configure. * Also I don't understand why libqpidbroker.so.0 exists at all. It's exclusively used by qpidd, there is no devel package associated to it, but ... let me presume upstream has reasons for doing so. None of them are show-stoppers. Remains one issue: * Source0: Should be an absolute URL. Provided you add this, consider this package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 05:10:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227115] Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140510.l1E5AwYC004204@bugzilla.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: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227115 ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-14 00:10 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name X upstream project is called saxon. Is this name change for compatibility reasons? - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec + ok - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) X version starts with B. Saxon B is the open source saxon, the B should probably be removed. Also since this is a jpp package, a %{?dist} needs to be addded - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? + OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware * license field matches the actual license. + ok * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common + ok * specfile name matches %{name} + ok * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. + ok, link still works and md5sums match # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot X incorrect buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) X dist is missing * license text included in package and marked with %doc X there is a doc directory, but no clear licensing text in itself. Perhaps the following file should be included in %doc: doc/conditions/intro.html? * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output X rpmlint saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_transform_impl W: saxon8 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47) - warning about group can be ignored, other issues should be fixed. * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used + ok * Vendor tag should not be used X this needs to be removed * Distribution tag should not be used X this needs to be removed * use License and not Copyright + ok * Summary tag should not end in a period + ok * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) + ok * specfile is legible - a couple of minor issues with tabs not lining up in information section * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package + ok * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) + ok * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English + ok * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b + has a doc package * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible + na * don't use rpath + na * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) + no config files * GUI apps should contain .desktop files + not a gui app * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps + ok * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable + no relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files X need to include requires jpackage-utils to own /usr/share/java[,doc] * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present + ok * %clean should be present + ok * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs X rpmlint RPMS/noarch/saxon8-* W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8 no-documentation - see comments above about %doc for licenses. W: saxon8 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives - can we get around this dangling symlink? W: saxon8-demo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-demo no-documentation W: saxon8-dom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-dom no-documentation W: saxon8-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: saxon8-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm - this should be fixed W: saxon8-jdom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-jdom no-documentation W: saxon8-manual non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-sql non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-sql no-documentation W: saxon8-xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-xom no-documentation W: saxon8-xpath non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon8-xpath no-documentation Note: group warnings can be ignored. SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 05:15:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:15:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140515.l1E5FXtm004302@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-14 00:15 EST ------- Probably caused by the leading '. If it's a problem, I can reword the summary... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 05:19:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:19:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140519.l1E5JGg6004409@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-14 00:19 EST ------- I'm interperting this as a rpmlint bug, as unbless is indeed capitalized in the summary; it's just after a quote. Reported as bug 228645. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 05:35:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:35:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140535.l1E5Zi9H004928@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-14 00:35 EST ------- mock build is fine. But rpmlint reported warnings W: speedcrunch wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/speedcrunch-0.7/README This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: speedcrunch wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/speedcrunch-0.7/ChangeLog This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. W: speedcrunch wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/speedcrunch-0.7/COPYING This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed correctly in some circumstances. ==> Above can be fixed easily. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/CommonRpmlintIssues#head-a0f61366f8eb114896cb4db188ee22b3d273f3a8 W: speedcrunch mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 10) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. Use sed -i -e 's|\t| |g' speedcrunch.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 05:55:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:55:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140555.l1E5tR6G005616@bugzilla.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: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-14 00:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #20) > ... > - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > . 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage Done > ... > X * license field matches the actual license. > + The license according > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/globalization/icu/license.jsp is X License Yeah, the X License = X.net License = X11 License = MIT License Only the MIT license and the X.net License appear in the offical rpmlint license list. Should this be called what the project calls it "X license" or should the MIT license be used instead since rpmlint likes it better? > ... > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > . Use the buildroot specified above Fixed > X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > . Use the new naming convention mentioned above Fixed > ... > X rpmlint on .srpm and rpm gives no output > W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java - group warnings can be ignored > W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding - fixed > W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding - fixed > W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding - fixed > W: icu4j-eclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development > Environments (IDE) - group warnings can be ignored > W: icu4j-eclipse no-documentation > . There should probably be an EPL file in the eclipse subpackage that needs > to be added The plugin should be under the X license since this is the license of the project. This has now been added > W: icu4j-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation - can ignore group warnings > W: icu4j-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm - fixed > W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java - can ignore group warnings > W: icu4j mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 55) - fixed > ... > X use macros appropriately and consistently > - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS > - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} used interchangably fixed > ... > X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps > Some cp commands not using -p option, suggest adding them if possible fixed >... > X package should own all directories and files > . /usr/lib/eclipse should be owned by libswt3-gtk2 in the latest update to it, > add a require for it > . jpackage-utils is needed for the javadoc and base package since it needs > /usr/share/java{,doc}. > Please take a look at > https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html and > modify the javadoc handling appropriately. If you use the above javadoc > handling then you can > limit to Requires: jpackage-utils in both javadoc and main packages, o/w you > need Requires(post) > and Requires on jpackage-utils as well as Requires(post) on rm and ln in > javadoc package and a > requires on the main package for jpackage-utils added requires on jpackage-utils and the libecj3-gtk to proper packages > ... > X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > + Builds in mock fine > . Requires need to be fixed, check "package should own all directories and files" > > SHOULD: > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > + OK > * package should build on i386 > + Builds in mock > * package should build in mock > + OK > > RPMLINT on new packages: srpm: rpmlint icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java rpms: E: icu4j explicit-lib-dependency libswt3-gtk2 - I believe this error is only occuring because it has 'lib' in the name. This package is needed to build the eclipse plugin subpackage. W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: icu4j-eclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development Environments (IDE) W: icu4j-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation The updated packages can be found here: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/215/icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/216/icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/217/icu4j-debuginfo-3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/218/icu4j-eclipse-3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/219/icu4j-javadoc-3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc7.i386.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 Wed Feb 14 06:07:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:07:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228241] Review Request: eb - ebook library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140607.l1E67nwX006357@bugzilla.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: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-14 01:07 EST ------- FC6 package built too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 06:08:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:08:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140608.l1E682Ni006389@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 Bug 228243 depends on bug 228241, which changed state. Bug 228241 Summary: Review Request: eb - ebook library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228241 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 06:28:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:28:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140628.l1E6Sb6M007213@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-14 01:28 EST ------- Hi, Hu Zheng. * What about to move zhcon.conf to %{_sysconfdir}? * The INSTALL file is not needed for %doc, since it's only used when build from source. * Correct the BuildRoot tag : BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * The vendor tag is reserved for Redhat or Fedora Project. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 06:29:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:29:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140629.l1E6T7if007258@bugzilla.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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-14 01:29 EST ------- Please also install a 48x48 icon, it is required by the spec. Just use convert on the 128x128 one (and remember to add ImageMagick as a BuildRequirement). Otherwise it looks fine, good job. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 06:38:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:38:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225288] Merge Review: at In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140638.l1E6c4LD007541@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 mastahnke at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mastahnke at gmail.com Flag|fedora-review? | ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-14 01:37 EST ------- Template I am using for review -- thanks KevinFenzi - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - Spec file matches base package name. - Spec has consistant macro usage. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - License - License field in spec matches - License file included in package - Spec in American English - Spec is legible. - Sources match upstream md5sum: - Package needs ExcludeArch - BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - Package has a correct %clean section. - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - Package owns all the directories it creates. - No rpmlint output. - final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - Should build on all supported archs - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - Should have dist tag - Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1 License file included in package -- License not included 2 Upstream source and package source do NOT match. [builder at rawhide SPECS]$ wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/at/at_3.1.10.tar.gz --00:12:28-- http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/at/at_3.1.10.tar.gz Resolving ftp.debian.org... 128.101.240.212 Connecting to ftp.debian.org|128.101.240.212|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 99179 (97K) [application/x-tar] Saving to: `at_3.1.10.tar.gz' 100%[=======================================>] 99,179 306K/s in 0.3s 00:12:28 (306 KB/s) - `at_3.1.10.tar.gz' saved [99179/99179] [builder at rawhide SOURCES]$ md5sum at-3.1.10.tar.gz a020a2ec32e1d629c0eef91e5728efad at-3.1.10.tar.gz [builder at rawhide SOURCES]$ md5sum ../SPECS/at_3.1.10.tar.gz 6e5857e23b3c32ea6995fb7f8989987e ../SPECS/at_3.1.10.tar.gz 3 BuildRequires correct -- Uses Legacy PreReq and BuildReq should be fixed accoridng to package guidelines. 4 Should /etc/at.deny have a noreplace option? 5 Package has correct buildroot of %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildRoot is not the normal string: current package has: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root 6 Current package does not build on rawhide fc7 -- at-3.1.10-7 (looks like a pam patch error) 7 Uses %makeinstall macro -- see package guidelines for why this is not recommended 8 Spec file is readable, but has LOTS of commented out older patches. Do they still need to be there? 9 rpmlint not run yet, as package does not build in rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 06:38:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:38:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140638.l1E6crVW007652@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-14 01:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > mockbuild failed as zlib-devel is not present in BuildRequires > When added above BR, mock build is fine but rpmlint on RPM gave Thanks for catching that. I made eb-devel require zlib-devel. > W: eblook file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/eblook.info.gz > The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8. Consider converting it > in the specfile for example using iconv(1). I think in this case using iconv should be pretty safe since it will choke on utf8 when trying to convert from eucjp. Updated to: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/eblook.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/petersen/extras/eblook-1.6.1-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 06:41:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:41:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226704] Review Request: iasl - Intel acpi compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140641.l1E6fhSv007762@bugzilla.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: iasl - Intel acpi compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226704 ------- Additional Comments From opensource at till.name 2007-02-14 01:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Why do you just build iasl? Is there any special reason why you do not take > the whole package? Maybe the other parts can be useful as well?! I made this package because virtualbox ( http://www.virtualbox.org/ ) needs it, if someone needs the other contents of this package, he may fill a bug report and I will look into adding the other contents. Debian as well only includes iasl ( http://packages.debian.org/testing/source/acpica-unix ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 06:59:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:59:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219972] Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140659.l1E6xM4G008300@bugzilla.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: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library Alias: poker-network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-14 01:59 EST ------- Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker-network.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker-network-1.0.35-1.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Feb 13 2007 Christopher Stone 1.0.35-1 - Upstream sync - Add selinux changes from wart - Remove patches applied upstream I have no idea what it means to "move the selinux policy into the reference policy, and use a boolean to enable/disable the http-can-talk-to-pokerd bits." However, I don't like the idea of requiring something that isn't technically necessary, so I left out the requires of the selinux package for poker-web. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 07:08:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:08:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140708.l1E78Mur008584@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-14 02:08 EST ------- I saw configure script in tarball. Why its not used? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 07:18:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:18:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140718.l1E7I4fE008844@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(j.w.r.degoede at hhs.| |nl) | ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-14 02:18 EST ------- Its hidden at the end of comment 9: "CVS-admin's I would like an FC-6 + devel tree only. I feel no need to release this for FC-5." -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 07:19:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:19:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140719.l1E7JZfX008910@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-14 02:19 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148040) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148040&action=view) Corrected some incorrect things in SPEC Here is some SPEC work for you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 07:49:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:49:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140749.l1E7njiO010180@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 02:49 EST ------- Well, * Specify the location of the source. * Don't use "zhcon-0.2.5-to-0.2.6.diff". Please use the source 0.2.6 directly. * The content of zhcon-0.2.6-path.patch is wrong. ------------------------------------------------ + $(INSTALL_DATA) $(srcdir)/zhcon.conf $(DESTDIR)$(prefix)/etc/zhcon.conf ------------------------------------------------ - The location of $(prefix)/etc/zhcon.conf is not right. - Note: the location of conf file is hardcoded. From src/zhcon.cpp: ------------------------------------------------ 124 if (access(cfgfile.c_str(), R_OK) != 0) 125 cfgfile = "/etc/zhcon.conf"; 126 ------------------------------------------------ Some reviewers say that it would be better to use: ------------------------------------------------ %{__sed} -i -e 's|/etc/zhcon.conf|%{_sysconfdir}/zhcon.conf|' \ src/zhcon.cpp ------------------------------------------------ to use rpm macro correctly. - And.. please avoid to use autotools as much as possible. i.e. when it is possible to apply a patch against not Makefile.am but Makefile.in, please make a patch for Makefile.in and don't call automake etc. For chown, I will check later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 07:52:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:52:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140752.l1E7q6jp010334@bugzilla.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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-14 02:51 EST ------- Done. New build: Spec URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/amarokFS.spec SRPM URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/amarokFS-0.4.2-3.src.rpm Changes: - Added BuildRequires: ImageMagick - Create and install a 48x48 icon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:11:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:11:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140811.l1E8B8L7011037@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 tla at rasmil.dk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk 2007-02-14 03:11 EST ------- The updated spec look fine to me, so i will approve it APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:11:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:11:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140811.l1E8BN1u011073@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From zhu at redhat.com 2007-02-14 03:11 EST ------- I have updated the files, you can download them again. The author changed the file path from /etc/zhcon.conf to PREFIX "/etc/zhcon.conf", I don't know why him change this. zhcon need the 4755 permission to access some devices. The author didn't release a 0.2.6 source tarball, only the patch is provided. Thanks everyone for concerning this :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:14:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:14:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226667] Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140814.l1E8EBFY011195@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226667 tla at rasmil.dk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tla at rasmil.dk 2007-02-14 03:13 EST ------- The updated spec file looks fine, so i will approve it. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:18:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:18:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140818.l1E8IMOe011441@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 03:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19) >> Spec: http://www.thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SPECs/deluge.spec > SRPM: http://www.thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SRPMs/deluge-0.4.1-4.src.rpm Well, * shebang - Well, lots of rpmlint complaints like: ---------------------------------------------------- E: deluge non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/deluge/plugins/NetworkHealthMonitor.py 0644 ---------------------------------------------------- Please remove shebang unless the script should have executable permissions. * Requires - well, "notify-python" is available on FC6, FC-devel, not on FC-5 (nor FE5) - And this works without notify-python with some limitation So -------------------------------------------- %if 0%{?fedora} >= 6 Requires: notify-python %endif -------------------------------------------- will be better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:36:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:36:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227674] Review Request: methane - Super Methane Brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140836.l1E8aSMQ012371@bugzilla.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: methane - Super Methane Brothers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227674 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-14 03:36 EST ------- Imported and build for FC-6 and devel, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:37:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:37:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140837.l1E8bG3O012451@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-14 03:37 EST ------- Imported and build for FC-6 and devel, closing. p.s. Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:37:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:37:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140837.l1E8bVns012481@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(wart at kobold.org) ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-14 03:37 EST ------- I rebuilt it, some minor problems stay. Please see and let me know your opinion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:40:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:40:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217735] Review Request: tcldict - Tcl dictionary extensiuon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140840.l1E8eX5H012697@bugzilla.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: tcldict - Tcl dictionary extensiuon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217735 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-14 03:40 EST ------- Reopen -> waiting for new tcl 8.5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:41:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:41:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228489] Review Request: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140841.l1E8fI2t012752@bugzilla.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: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228489 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 03:41 EST ------- updated wiki http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Dictionaries to match .zip date and updated http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nb-0.20060508-1.src.rpm to match -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:41:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:41:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140841.l1E8frQD012783@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 03:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > I have updated the files, you can download them again. Umm.. where? Note: please bump the release number every time you fix the spec file. * chown > zhcon need the 4755 permission to access some devices. - I checked the spec from Parag, still failing mockbuild on FC7 i386. Well, src/Makefile.in still says: --------------------------------------- install-exec-local: chmod 4755 $(bindir)/zhcon --------------------------------------- It seems that automake is not called recursively. So please apply a patch for Makefile.in. * %attr - And use %attr for binaries which needs setuid/setgid bits. Unless using %attr, rpmbuild removes the setuid/setgid bits on creating rpm. - dist tag Using dist tag %{?dist} makes it easier to manage spec files on different branches and this is recommended. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag - quiet setup - setup is not quiet. Please use "%setup -q" - and please make it quite to expand files from tarball i.e. Don't use "zxvf" for tar. and please use "zxf". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:45:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:45:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228490] Review Request: hunspell-nl - Dutch hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140845.l1E8jfY4012964@bugzilla.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: hunspell-nl - Dutch hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228490 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 03:45 EST ------- updated wiki http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Dictionaries to match .zip date and updated http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-nl-0.20050720-1.src.rpm to match -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:48:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:48:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140848.l1E8mnib013158@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-14 03:48 EST ------- maybe too many % in: chcon -t textrel_shlib_t \ %%{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins/dbgperspective/libdbgperspectiveplugin.so ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:51:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:51:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227198] Review Request: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140851.l1E8pNPQ013370@bugzilla.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: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227198 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-14 03:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > This is my first review, so this is kind of unofficial. So here goes: > > - License in License tag seems to match the license in the source code, but > would it be possible to be more specific that zlib/libpng? (zlib has a BSD > license, libpng has an "OSI certified license" that looks kind of BSD-ish.) zlib/libpng License is an often used term, its even in the list of licenses rpmlint recognises as valid, also this is how upstream refers to the license for this package, thus I believe this best describes the license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:53:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:53:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140853.l1E8r7Gd013573@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 03:52 EST ------- For -2: * Timestamps - Well, to keep timestamps on files installed from source, using "cp -p" or "install -p" is needed. Then please "install -p -Dm 644 ...", for example. * disttag - Well, disttag for %changelog entry is not needed. rpmlint ignored when disttag is missing on %changelog, however if you explicitly write .fc6 on disttag, rpmlint complains to me because... I use rawhide. i.e. please write: --------------------------------------------------- * Mon Feb 13 2007 Xavier Lamien - 0.5.4-2 --------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 08:59:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:59:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228492] Review Request: hunspell-nn - Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140859.l1E8xirF014167@bugzilla.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: hunspell-nn - Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228492 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 03:59 EST ------- Minor: upstreamid does not seem correct, web site says nn_NO.zip 08-May-2006 Original upstream URL seems to be http://spell-norwegian.alioth.debian.org/ GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 84b4a34ae81517d08bfa69b19f1372240c0a021c nn_NO.zip (see also comment #1 below) - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that it includes only 3 text files) - the license ( GPL ) stated in the tag is the same as the web site and the included doc say; it is not included in the package because upstream did not include it either - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED as usual, please ask upstream to include the license file in the archive COMMENT: upstream seems to offer a newer version (http://alioth.debian.org/frs/download.php/1600/no_NO-pack-2.0.8.zip, 30 may 2006) but it contains exactly the same files as those submitted by Caolan -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:00:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:00:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226998] Review Request: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140900.l1E90qF3014310@bugzilla.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: gemdropx - Falling blocks puzzlegame https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226998 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 04:00 EST ------- You are welcome! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:03:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:03:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140903.l1E93hlA014842@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 04:03 EST ------- Just a note: On rawhide gail is updated to 1.17.0, however, still the patch from Ikezoe is needed... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:07:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:07:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222087] Review Request: pcmanx-gtk2 - Telnet client designed for BBS browsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140907.l1E97XDv015417@bugzilla.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: pcmanx-gtk2 - Telnet client designed for BBS browsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222087 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 04:07 EST ------- Again ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:19:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:19:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226666] Merge Review: yum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140919.l1E9JOqH016513@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226666 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 04:19 EST ------- Issues: * Why is it a BuildRequires: python and not Buildrequires: python-devel? * it seems to me that the python-devel BuildRequires should be versionned then Requires: python >= 2.4 would be autodetected * Prereq should be replaced with Requires(preun) and so on... * Is the conflict really needed? pirut >= 1.1.4 should requires a recent enough yum version. suggestions: * use %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root, root) * prefix plugin.conf source file by a disambiguating prefix like yum-plugin.conf * remove the -f to be notified when the file doesn't exist/change name... rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/yum/yum.conf * there is an occurence of /etc hardcoded in the specfile, it could be %_sysconfdir. However the upstream Makefiles and programs have many paths hardcoded so this is not really an issue. (There is also a /var and some /usr, but I guess they are also hardcoded in the package). * It seems to me that BuildArch is more used that BuildArchitectures * There is no need of / after $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:20:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:20:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140920.l1E9Krqn016649@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-14 04:20 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM + source files match upstream. c570ce70697e6653d4d086fa3ad97e19 eblook-1.6.1.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:20:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:20:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140920.l1E9KrrX016658@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-14 04:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Historically coreutils.spec has kept its translations in the specspo package, > as other Core packages have done. What needs to happen now? Tim, please DON'T put any translation into coreutils.spec, there's specspo as you mentioned and I only know a few packages in Extras which break the typical defacto-standard of specspo and include some translations into the spec. Maybe these abusing lines within that specs should be killed soon, too... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:23:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:23:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140923.l1E9NngK016830@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 04:23 EST ------- I have not checked this package yet, however, * Source0 - I just checked upstream and 1.0.1 seems to be released (yesterday?) * category removement -------------------------------- # Application category is obsoleted, so let's get rid of it in desktop file sed "s#Application;##" -i %{name}.desktop -------------------------------- Usually this is dealt like -------------------------------- desktop-file-install --vendor="fedora" \ --dir=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications \ --remove-category Application \ --delete-original \ ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop -------------------------------- * missing source(?) - Mockbuild on FC7 i386 says ---------------------------------------------- + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh /builddir/build/BUILD/sonata-1.0 extracting debug info from /var/tmp/sonata-1.0-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mmkeys.so cpio: sonata-1.0/mmkeys.c: No such file or directory <-??? 17 blocks + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot ---------------------------------------------- I will check what is happening, however, would you check this, too? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:26:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:26:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140926.l1E9Q65u016943@bugzilla.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: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 ------- Additional Comments From meyering at redhat.com 2007-02-14 04:26 EST ------- Hi Ralf, Thanks for the detailed feedback. The ld.so difference is due to the way libtool's AC_LIBTOOL_SYS_DYNAMIC_LINKER works when /etc/ld.so.conf contains a glob pattern that matches no file. In the mock-build environment, I'll bet that there are no *.conf files in /etc/ld.so.conf.d The java configure difference is probably because java was installed in your user-built environment, but not in the mock-built one. For qpidc, java is optional. Used if found, but no problem (just reduced build-time functionality) if not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:26:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:26:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227811] Review Request: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140926.l1E9QfeE016999@bugzilla.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: hunspell-af - Afrikaans hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227811 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 04:26 EST ------- 27535 (hunspell-af): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:32:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226667] Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140932.l1E9WwaY017381@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: yum-metadata-parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226667 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 04:32 EST ------- Issue: * The conflict seems wrong, yum with high enough versions already requires yum-metadata-parser. Besides is there a real Conflict? Suggestion: * use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:36:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:36:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140936.l1E9aYvK017609@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-14 04:36 EST ------- mockbuild is fine for F7 i386 rpmlint reported W: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts no-%build-section The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty. However for this package its not needed but its good to add that like %build echo "Nothing to do in Build." I think naming of package is OK for me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:38:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:38:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140938.l1E9cOae017741@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-14 04:38 EST ------- Kindly submit new release bumping release number so that i can do (UN)Official review of this package. I can't approve this package as I don't have SPONSOR status. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:41:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:41:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228279] Review Request: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140941.l1E9fJGc017972@bugzilla.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: hunspell-bg - Bulgarian hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228279 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 04:41 EST ------- 27537 (hunspell-bg): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:42:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228291] Review Request: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140942.l1E9g4tH018068@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ca - Catalan hunspell dictionary https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228291 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 04:42 EST ------- 27538 (hunspell-ca): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:44:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:44:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228493] Review Request: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140944.l1E9iDRB018285@bugzilla.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: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228493 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 04:43 EST ------- %Source is no longer valid. The very same file is available as http://www.kurnik.pl/dictionary/alt-myspell-pl.tar.bz2 but a newer version has been released as http://www.kurnik.pl/dictionary/alt-myspell-pl-20070214.tar.bz2 Please consider updating %{upstreamid} and %Source before importing GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 7fa4e8a72290c53dedb1eee1f0a144a4ce77a27e alt-myspell-pl.tar.bz2 (upstream) 7fa4e8a72290c53dedb1eee1f0a144a4ce77a27e alt-myspell-pl-20060823.tar.bz2 (included) - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is one of the four (!) specified in the archive bundle; the three others are LGPL, MPL (Mozilla Public License) and Creative Commons ShareAlike v1; I am not sure at the moment which one should be picked, but I guess GPL is a safe bet. None of the four licenses is included in the archive, so the rpm does not include them either. Please also see my comment below. - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED Caolan, please consider updating to latest version before importing. And maybe you can persuade upstream to include the license files in the archive... Comment: if anyone has objections against using GPL for the license tag, please do explain your rationale, I am eager to learn. The wiki says just "Alternately, if code is dual licensed, and one of the licenses meets the open source license criteria, that code can be included in Fedora under the open source license." which does not cover the case when several OSI approved licenses are available. And unfortunately at the moment there is no one on #fedora-extras with proper knowledge in this area. I am approving the package anyway because none of the licenses is a blocker and if needed the tag can be modified later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:44:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:44:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228465] Review Request: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140944.l1E9iZFN018371@bugzilla.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: hunspell-cy - Welsh hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228465 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 04:44 EST ------- 27539 (hunspell-cy): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 09:48:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:48:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228468] Review Request: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702140948.l1E9mRwU018764@bugzilla.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: hunspell-da - Danish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228468 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 04:48 EST ------- 27540 (hunspell-da): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:01:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:01:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228493] Review Request: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141001.l1EA1FmW019291@bugzilla.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: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228493 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:01 EST ------- updated to todays release in this case all of the alternative licenses are available for selection as the one to use for fedora, I don't mind which. I don't think it really matters which is selected. LGPL is sort of the default license for the majority of the dictionaries, so I plumped for that option of the 3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:01:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:01:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228296] Review Request: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141001.l1EA1euV019318@bugzilla.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: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228296 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-14 05:01 EST ------- I don't see where "generic" file names would be a problem, as long as they're managed in CVS and not uploaded as sources. These will be managed in CVS. About the LGPL -> GPL change, I'd change it in the PKG-INFO that will go with the binary rpms, and that's it. No change to the C file, since the source rpm can be considered LGPL, but our binary builds against lirc will have to be GPL. Comments in the spec file will detail this a little. Would that be okay? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:02:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:02:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228469] Review Request: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141002.l1EA2s4q019391@bugzilla.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: hunspell-de - German hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228469 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:02 EST ------- 27541 (hunspell-de): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:05:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:05:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141005.l1EA5ajc019543@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From zhu at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:05 EST ------- Here is the newest version: http://reciteword.cosoft.org.cn/redhat/zhcon.spec http://reciteword.cosoft.org.cn/redhat/zhcon-0.2.6-1.src.rpm The main problem is mock didn't pass. But it is OK on my system, so I think patch the Makefile.in is not the solution. The problem should be some things are lacked in Buildrequires, I doubt it is intltool etc., which make automake failed. Any one can help me to figure it out? I can't install mock presently as it need 10G disk space, which I don't have presently, I will try it on another machine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:11:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:11:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228293] Review Request: gkrellm-moon - Moon clock plugin for GKrellM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141011.l1EABSul020128@bugzilla.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: gkrellm-moon - Moon clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228293 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-14 05:11 EST ------- 1. OK, it's changed to %defattr(-,root,root,-) 2. It's a matter of personal taste and a dislike of sticky futile exec()s :-) gkrellm-moon-0.6-2.fc6.src.rpm and an updated spec file are available from the same location. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:14:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:14:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141014.l1EAESqU020279@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-14 05:14 EST ------- What is necessary to reproduce the selinux error? I don't get any such output or audit messages when starting nemiver. The context of the DSO file is the default system_u:object_r:lib_t -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:17:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:17:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141017.l1EAHQ8N020670@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-14 05:17 EST ------- I'd also follow the chcon command with the usual "&> /dev/null || :" to avoid issues on systems with SELinux not installed or running a policy not containing the textrel_shlib_ context type. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:22:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228294] Review Request: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141022.l1EAMIoZ021184@bugzilla.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: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228294 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-14 05:22 EST ------- 1. OK, it's changed to %defattr(-,root,root,-) 2. It's a matter of personal taste and a dislike of sticky futile exec()s :-) gkrellm-sun-1.0.0-2.fc6.src.rpm and an updated spec file are available from the same location. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:23:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:23:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141023.l1EANjQJ021334@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-14 05:23 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148044) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148044&action=view) spec of zhcon from fedora-cn -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:25:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:25:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141025.l1EAPqZW021554@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(ruben at rubenkerkhof | |.com) ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:25 EST ------- I don't want to add new version to FC-7. It's "only" pre- version. It should stay in devel some time for testing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:25:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:25:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141025.l1EAPl9E021542@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 hellwolf.misty at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #148044|spec of zhcon from fedora-cn|I have a spec of zhcon description| |myself, and it used in | |fedora-cn. | |You can try the attachment. | |In this spec, I use | |autoreconf to reconf the | |autotool stuff, it works in | |fedora-cn's chroot build(not | |mock, but alike) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:26:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:26:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228471] Review Request: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141026.l1EAQEum021616@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ee - Estonian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228471 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:26 EST ------- 27546 (hunspell-ee): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:26:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:26:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 176452] Review Request: oddjob - a D-BUS service which runs odd jobs on behalf of client applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141026.l1EAQslF021719@bugzilla.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: oddjob - a D-BUS service which runs odd jobs on behalf of client applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176452 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|fedora-extras- | |list at redhat.com | CC| |fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com CC|fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com | CC| |fedora-extras- | |list at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-14 05:26 EST ------- The circular dependency between the main package and the -libs package is odd. The main package has an implicit dependency on the library SONAME in the -libs package. The -libs package has an explicit dependency on the main package. The initial import (tagged oddjob-0_23-1) has an indirect dependency from the -devel package to the main package and from there to the -libs package via the automatic SONAME dep. Instead, it should have been just -devel requires -libs, not -devel requires main package and not -libs requires main 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 Wed Feb 14 10:27:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:27:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228472] Review Request: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141027.l1EARapa021791@bugzilla.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: hunspell-el - Greek hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228472 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:27 EST ------- 27547 (hunspell-el): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:27:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:27:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141027.l1EARa4r021799@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-14 05:27 EST ------- (From update of attachment 148044) I have a spec of zhcon myself, and it used in fedora-cn. You can try the attachment. In this spec, I use autoreconf to reconf the autotool stuff, it works in fedora-cn's chroot build(not mock, but alike) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:28:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:28:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228473] Review Request: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141028.l1EASc3Q021957@bugzilla.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: hunspell-es - Spanish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228473 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:28 EST ------- 27548 (hunspell-es): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:29:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:29:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228476] Review Request: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141029.l1EATXer022095@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ga - Irish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228476 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:29 EST ------- 27550 (hunspell-ga): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:30:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228477] Review Request: hunspell-gl - Galician hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141030.l1EAUYcx022253@bugzilla.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: hunspell-gl - Galician hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228477 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:30 EST ------- 27553 (hunspell-gl): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:39:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:39:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228492] Review Request: hunspell-nn - Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141039.l1EAdE4L022945@bugzilla.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: hunspell-nn - Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228492 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:39 EST ------- wiki updated to correct timestamp, .src.rpm updated -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:41:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228478] Review Request: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141041.l1EAfknW023199@bugzilla.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: hunspell-he - Hebrew hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228478 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 05:41 EST ------- 27554 (hunspell-he): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:44:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:44:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228495] Review Request: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141044.l1EAiTLN023439@bugzilla.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: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228495 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 05:44 EST ------- There are two dictionaries included, for pt_PT and pt_BR; each one comes with a Readme file (Leia-me.pdf). As they are not completely identical (for instance ine of them clarifies the license, while the other does not), please consider packaging them both GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 0f000c39d4879c5008efe51d34daea89a94da271 pt_BR-2700g.zip 5b6c2f9d6e45b185174e2950e2b1e3a9fa1b6dd4 pt_PT-2700C.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - MUSTFIX the license (GPL) stated in the tag is not the same as the web site says. http://www.broffice.org.br/?q=docs claims "Creative Commons (padr?o) - GNU FDL - ODL" while one of the included readme files claims LGPL. - the package includes just word lists + docs with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file please fix the differences between the license tag and the ones from upstream and I will approve the package. Please also try to persuade upstream to include the licenses in the archives. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 10:58:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:58:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228496] Review Request: hunspell-ru - Russian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141058.l1EAwlZJ024523@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ru - Russian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228496 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 05:58 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 176b8983980395c8e386884f4f08a6a5bb0aed63 ru_RU.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license BSD stated in the tag is the same as the web site says; it is not included in the package because upstream does not include it either; however a doc is included which says: "Permission to use, copy, redistribute is granted. Permission to redistribute modifications in patch form is granted. Permission to redistribute binaries made of modified sources is granted. All other rights reserved." I guess this ressembles BSD well enough. - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:02:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:02:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141102.l1EB296L024915@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-14 06:02 EST ------- Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker2d.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker2d-1.0.35-1.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Feb 15 2007 Christopher Stone 1.0.35-1 - Upstream sync - Remove Requires for MySQL-python - Move creation of desktop file to %%prep -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:17:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:17:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228495] Review Request: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141117.l1EBHCTu026414@bugzilla.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: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228495 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 06:17 EST ------- It's a little confusing here, the http://www.broffice.org.br/?q=docs page seems to be the license for "collaboration with the Documentation of the BrOffice.org in case that you have developed some proper documentation (tutorial, etc)" while at http://www.broffice.org.br/?q=verortografico from where the dictionary website makes these available for download has text of roughly... "It is easy to collaborate, sees. You observe, when typing one definitive text in the BrOffice.org, that an incorrect word was colored in red. There you in them send an email telling this word. If to prefer will be able to join a series of words and to send them later. The same valley for incorrect words that are validated by the Ortogr?fico Verifier. It saw as is easy? Then, what you are waiting. IT ROLLS UP SLEEVES, and it comes to participate of this project. Remembering that our participation is voluntary and is based in license LGPL. Our email is in the end of this page." So the pt-PT has a readme saying it is LGPL and the pt-BR doesn't have one in the package, but the broffice.org people who wrote the pt-BR dictionary state on the download page that participation by submitting to the dictionary will be under the LGPL. Hence I've adjusted the licence to be LGPL in the spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:20:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:20:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228497] Review Request: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141120.l1EBKaMJ026749@bugzilla.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: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228497 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 06:20 EST ------- %upstreamid is wrong (20050228 versus 20050911). However it is not used so no harm done GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum a5a703b2da40a16db166718372a2a6842f6671e2 sk_SK.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says and is also included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:21:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:21:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141121.l1EBL29K026843@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-14 06:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > I have not checked this package yet, however, > > * Source0 > - I just checked upstream and 1.0.1 seems to be released > (yesterday?) I'll upload a new SRPM later. > I will check what is happening, however, would you check > this, too? I checked mock build at home and it builded fine. Probably this problem is related with python-2.5. However, maybe the new SRPM I'm going to upload later will fix this problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:22:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:22:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228495] Review Request: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141122.l1EBMshX027037@bugzilla.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: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228495 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 06:22 EST ------- Me too I would have modified the tag to LGPL :) Once the servers sync I'll verify and approve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:37:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:37:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228497] Review Request: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141137.l1EBb1B3028122@bugzilla.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: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228497 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 06:36 EST ------- wiki updated to match .zip and srpm updated to match that -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:37:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:37:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228499] Review Request: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141137.l1EBbwEf028202@bugzilla.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: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228499 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 06:37 EST ------- Upstream version has been updated, current one is 27-Jan-2007. Fortunately the difference is only the licensing terms (switched from GPL to dual GPL/LGPL). However in order to respect all packaging rules, please update the rpm. GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says and is included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file MUSTFIX: source does not match upstream 6ff19cff25411c5ce7bd127e54395fe7441ab27d sl_SI.zip (upstream) b95fa4b31683ed3768532d4dc41b7a584bd795fc sl_SI.zip (src.rpm) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:38:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:38:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220979] Review Request: tesseract - Raw OCR Engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141138.l1EBcAlk028230@bugzilla.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: tesseract - Raw OCR Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220979 ------- Additional Comments From karlikt at gmail.com 2007-02-14 06:38 EST ------- Update to v1.03: http://karlik.nonlogic.org/tesseract/tesseract.spec http://karlik.nonlogic.org/tesseract/tesseract-1.03-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:40:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:40:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141140.l1EBel4k028369@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-14 06:40 EST ------- I just updated texi2html to the latest CVS snapshot as of today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:41:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:41:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141141.l1EBf6oO028396@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-14 06:41 EST ------- New SPEC: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/rpm/sonata/sonata.spec New SRPM: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/rpm/sonata/sonata-1.0.1-1.src.rpm Mamoru, test it on fc7/i386 please. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:44:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:44:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228499] Review Request: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141144.l1EBiga0028557@bugzilla.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: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228499 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 06:44 EST ------- updated to latest dict release as: http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-sl-0.20070127-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:45:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:45:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228500] Review Request: hunspell-sv - Swedish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141145.l1EBjOPS028610@bugzilla.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: hunspell-sv - Swedish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228500 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 06:45 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license LGPL stated in the tag is the same as the one included in the package (as COPYING) - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a couple of docs, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 11:53:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 06:53:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228501] Review Request: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141153.l1EBraYq029112@bugzilla.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: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228501 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 06:53 EST ------- Upstream version has been updated, current one is 12-Dec-2006. Therefore the upstream source and the one included in the src.rpm do not coincide. GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license LGPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says and is not included in the package because upstream does not include it either; it is however mentioned in a bundled README - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file MUSTFIX 36e94fd62cc246ebb083fbab8ce200b07a2934c2 th_TH.zip (upstream) d0ec83646ea1d0a4fd1262dec44ac97e59bcfefa th_TH.zip (bundled in src.rpm) SHOULD Please ask upstream to include the license in the archive -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:02:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141202.l1EC2ALe029558@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 ------- Additional Comments From bnocera at redhat.com 2007-02-14 07:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > The formal review is here: > MUST FIX: > > BAD rpmlint is NOT silent. > > result of running "rpmlint -vi" > W: flac-devel summary-ended-with-dot Static libraries and header files from FLAC. > you forgot the dot in the second Summary ;-) Fixed. > I: flac.i386.rpm checking > E: flac obsolete-not-provided flac-libs > The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths > and not to break dependencies. Added a Provides. > I: flac.srpm checking > W: flac unversioned-explicit-obsoletes flac-libs > The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all > older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update > problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it > was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if > possible. I'm afraid I don't have a version for the obsoletes. I think flac-libs was being used by 3rd party repositories before the package was included in RH. Should all get fixed in the 1.1.4 package (as soon as i resolve patch conflicts) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:02:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:02:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228499] Review Request: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141202.l1EC2M8Z029589@bugzilla.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: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228499 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 07:02 EST ------- Problems fixed, APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:04:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:04:25 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217350=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2100-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2100_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141204.l1EC4PCl029677@bugzilla.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: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-14 07:04 EST ------- All set for a formal review, then. Updated packages here (minor cleanups) : http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2100-firmware/ipw2100-firmware-1.3-4.src.rpm http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2100-firmware/ipw2100-firmware.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:05:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:05:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228501] Review Request: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141205.l1EC5hwJ029744@bugzilla.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: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228501 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 07:05 EST ------- updated to latest as http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/hunspell/hunspell-th-0.20061212-1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:08:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:08:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228497] Review Request: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141208.l1EC8YMs029842@bugzilla.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: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228497 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 07:08 EST ------- Please add %{dist} to release tag before importing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:11:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:11:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228495] Review Request: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141211.l1ECB3hK030058@bugzilla.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: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228495 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 07:11 EST ------- Problems fixed. Package APPROVED (Would have done it sooner if the separate .spec was updated too...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:13:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:13:06 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141213.l1ECD63B030177@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-14 07:13 EST ------- All set for a formal review, then. Updated packages here (minor cleanups) : http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2200-firmware/ipw2200-firmware-3.0-4.src.rpm http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2200-firmware/ipw2200-firmware.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:15:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:15:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228501] Review Request: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141215.l1ECF8bc030292@bugzilla.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: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228501 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 07:14 EST ------- Problems fixed. package APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:22:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:22:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228503] Review Request: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141222.l1ECM4nB030676@bugzilla.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: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228503 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 07:21 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum b259f261b15fbdab9c157fd94aa60b0abfc94597 zu_ZA.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license LGPL stated in the tag is the same as upstream says and is included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:26:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:26:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141226.l1ECQvLJ031035@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 hellwolf.misty at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:37:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:37:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141237.l1ECbRwJ031545@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-14 07:37 EST ------- In reply to comment #1: 1. Fixed, thanks. 2. Applies for upgrades from 6.2 without updates, so I suppose it can go now. 3. Fixed, thanks. 4. Needs further testing and I'm low on spare time this time round :-( Tagged and built as 6.7-5.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:51:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:51:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197445] Review Request: fuse-convmvfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141251.l1ECpetq032479@bugzilla.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-convmvfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197445 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 12:55:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:55:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141255.l1ECtacn000372@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 ------- Additional Comments From pknirsch at redhat.com 2007-02-14 07:55 EST ------- Hi Kevin. After the discussion on f-m list i completely agree with your opinion that the logfile shouldn't be owned at all, partially because of the logrotate reasons but also because it doesn't really make sense if a lot of packages don't own the logfiles because of undecidable situtions and just a few do. It would and should be different with directories in /var/log/, but acpid doesn't have one. I'll rebuild the package without the ownership of the logfile today. That would finish the review then iirc, right? :) And thanks again for the good review, work and the really helpful comments. This way we can improve the review guidelines as well, so everyone can benefit from it. Read ya, Phil -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 13:46:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:46:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141346.l1EDkLQ5003655@bugzilla.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: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-14 08:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #21) > > X package should own all directories and files > > . /usr/lib/eclipse should be owned by libswt3-gtk2 in the latest update to it, > > add a require for it No, it should require eclipse-platform. While SWT does indeed own that directory, the plugin should probably require eclipse-platform. Ben, can you give us your opinion? -- 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 Wed Feb 14 14:16:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:16:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141416.l1EEGwPu006993@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 09:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > ---------------------------------------------- > + /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh /builddir/build/BUILD/sonata-1.0 > extracting debug info from > /var/tmp/sonata-1.0-1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/mmkeys.so > cpio: sonata-1.0/mmkeys.c: No such file or directory <-??? > 17 blocks > + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot > ---------------------------------------------- This turned out to be due to be the #line comment in mmkeys/mmkeyspy.c and then can be ignored. Well, I just launched sonata, and sonata prints out some warning about dbus. Is this okay? ----------------------------------------------------- GTK Accessibility Module initialized Taglib and tagpy not found, tag editing support disabled. /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/sonata.py:5579: DeprecationWarning: The dbus_bindings module is deprecated and will go away soon. dbus-python 0.80 provides only a partial emulation of the old dbus_bindings, which was never meant to be public API. Most uses of dbus_bindings are applications catching the exception dbus.dbus_bindings.DBusException. You should use dbus.DBusException instead (this is compatible with all dbus-python versions since 0.40.2). If you need additional public API, please contact the maintainers via . retval = dbus.dbus_bindings.bus_request_name(session_bus.get_connection(), "org.MPD.Sonata", dbus.dbus_bindings.NAME_FLAG_DO_NOT_QUEUE) /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/dbus/_dbus.py:853: DeprecationWarning: The dbus_bindings module is deprecated and will go away soon. dbus-python 0.80 provides only a partial emulation of the old dbus_bindings, which was never meant to be public API. Most uses of dbus_bindings are applications catching the exception dbus.dbus_bindings.DBusException. You should use dbus.DBusException instead (this is compatible with all dbus-python versions since 0.40.2). If you need additional public API, please contact the maintainers via . import dbus.dbus_bindings as m Sonata failed to connect to the D-BUS session bus: Unable to determine the address of the message bus (try 'man dbus-launch' and 'man dbus-daemon' for help) -------------------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 14:25:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:25:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225839] Merge Review: gnome-terminal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141425.l1EEPLD7007700@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-terminal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225839 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-14 09:25 EST ------- I've addressed most of these points in 2.17.91-2.fc7, except for /etc/gconf/schemas, which is not a problem, since we have a dependency on GConf2 which owns it, and /usr/share/gnome/help/ where I don't see any non-borken resolution yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 14:27:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:27:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225839] Merge Review: gnome-terminal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141427.l1EER37l007782@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-terminal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225839 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|besfahbo at redhat.com |reza at farsiweb.info Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 14:34:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:34:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141434.l1EEY6wG008177@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-14 09:34 EST ------- 1) Sorted out vpflib license. Look at this project (http://www.ivtools.org/vhclmaps/), they used the _same_ vpfutil whatever we call in ogdi vpflib but have a good explonation of the sources: >From their LICENSE file: -----------------------/////////----------------> The VpfUtil library contains the public domain VPFVIEW C code included with the Digital Chart of the World, Edition 1, which was pruned and ported to work on "POSIX"-like systems. The line-of-sight and viewshed capability was borrowed and retrofitted from the DMA (NIMA) MUSE2 package. --------------///////-------------------------------------< >From Nima license site: http://earth-info.nga.mil/geospatial/SW_TOOLS/NIMAMUSE/dist/VPFViewdist.html Is that OK ? 2)Sorted out to replace "numeric C recipes"-'s ultimate wisdom ! Err, what ogdi use from that crappy gmath.c: -2D matrix mult. -2D matrix invert. Rest of gmath.c is unused, all functions are just declared but unused. 'blas' or 'lapack' project has functions for matrix 2d manipulation, so i try to come up with a replacemant in ogdi, but it will imply to add blas to build requirement,so i will try escaladete the final replacement patch until confgure.in olso. c'mmon, its not so hard to mult 2 matrices especialy in 2D without floating or whatever super precision,and to invert matrix is piece of cake. http://www.google.com/codesearch?q=multiply+matrices&hl=en&btnG=Search+Code Look at grass one which link to 'blas','lapack'. Guys, What do you think ? Make sense go for it ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 14:34:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:34:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141434.l1EEYYJ1008258@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-14 09:34 EST ------- Changes in -10 - rename icon files to tn5250.{png,xpm} - remove Mimetype from desktop file - move category to desktop file - use vendor fedora for desktop-file-install - touch files to avoid autotools run -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 14:39:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:39:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228475] Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141439.l1EEd4e4008744@bugzilla.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: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228475 ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-14 09:39 EST ------- Any progress on this review, I believe it's the last of the hunspell dictionary outstanding. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 14:44:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:44:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228475] Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141444.l1EEiu0R009132@bugzilla.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: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228475 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-14 09:44 EST ------- Xavier has assigned it to himself for review and I do not think it would be polite from m part to step on his shoes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 14:48:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:48:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141448.l1EEmo9b009389@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-14 09:48 EST ------- Another thing seems to be related with python-2.5. Probably should be ignored; anyway I'm going to report it to the upstream. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:00:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:00:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227115] Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141500.l1EF05hU010082@bugzilla.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: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227115 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:04:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141504.l1EF4gED010350@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 ggainey at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pthomas at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From ggainey at redhat.com 2007-02-14 10:04 EST ------- *** Bug 227732 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:07:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:07:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141507.l1EF7V5T010735@bugzilla.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: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 ------- Additional Comments From bkonrath at redhat.com 2007-02-14 10:07 EST ------- Technically the icu4j OSGi jars shouldn't require any eclipse subpackage. It is possible that someone would want to use the OSGi jar instead of the regular jar outside of eclipse. Here's what I think we should do: remove the 'Requires: libswt3-gtk2' and put the OSGi jar in /usr/share/java/. That will allow it to be installed independently of eclispe and we can just symlink to it in the eclipse build. If the OSGi jar can be used in place of the regular jar, I think we should only include the OSGi jar and add a symlink for the regular jar in /usr/share/java/. Also, I noticed a small error with the src.zip creation; '--date=1/1/1970' should be changed to '--date=1/1/1980' because the zip file format starts at 1980. Really it's my mistake from when I first updated this spec file, sorry. -- 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 Wed Feb 14 15:29:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:29:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141529.l1EFTnHB013362@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-14 10:29 EST ------- in autoconf213-2.13-13: - buildroot fixed - removed textutils, rebuilt in mock, no errors, no lost files. looks like it doesn't need this requirement anymore - dot removed from summary - it requires gawk, but not perl (real requirements, not build requirements) - use install-info - use BuildArch - replace tabs with spaces - fix defattr - use 'make install DESTDIR=...' info files are compressed automatically by rpmbuild, it's not required to put that into the spec file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:36:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:36:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141536.l1EFaF6t013748@bugzilla.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: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-14 10:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #21) > (In reply to comment #20) > > ... > > - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > > . 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage Looks good, 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc7 is rpm newer > > ... > > X * license field matches the actual license. > > + The license according > > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/globalization/icu/license.jsp is X License > Yeah, the X License = X.net License = X11 License = MIT License > Only the MIT license and the X.net License appear in the offical rpmlint > license list. Should this be called what the project calls it "X license" > or should the MIT license be used instead since rpmlint likes it better? > MIT style seems correct to me for this package > > W: icu4j-eclipse no-documentation > > . There should probably be an EPL file in the eclipse subpackage that needs > > to be added > The plugin should be under the X license since this is the license of the > project. This has now been added OK > > X package should own all directories and files > > . /usr/lib/eclipse should be owned by libswt3-gtk2 in the latest update to it, Please apply bkonrath's suggestion above > > add a require for it > > . jpackage-utils is needed for the javadoc and base package since it needs > > /usr/share/java{,doc}. Also please apply the fix to the src.zip that bkonrath mentioned Everything else 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 bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:40:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141540.l1EFewju014228@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:48:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:48:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141548.l1EFmNP2014894@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-14 10:48 EST ------- Source Code Disclaimer 1. The VPFView source code ("the software") is provided free of charge via the Internet by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) of the United States Department of Defense. Although NIMA makes no copyright claim under Title 17 U.S.C., NIMA claims copyrights in the source code under other legal regimes. NIMA hereby grants to each user of the software a license to use and distribute the software, and develop derivative works. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:48:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:48:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141548.l1EFmObq014901@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 jeff at ocjtech.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-14 10:48 EST ------- * source files match upstream - no differences found when comparing included tarball with tarball generated by included script ! package meets naming and packaging guidelines. See below. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (fc7 i386, fc6 i386). * package installs properly. ! rpmlint says: W: fedora-ds invalid-license GPL plus extensions W: fedora-ds-devel invalid-license GPL plus extensions W: fedora-ds-debuginfo invalid-license GPL plus extensions W: fedora-ds invalid-license GPL plus extensions Perhaps should use just GPL as the license tag? E: fedora-ds dir-or-file-in-tmp /var/tmp/fedora-ds Is this directory really needed? W: fedora-ds log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/fedora-ds Is there something built into the directory server to rotate log files? E: fedora-ds-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: fedora-ds-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/fedora-ds/libns-dshttpd.so libns-dshttpd.so.0.0.0 W: fedora-ds-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/fedora-ds/libslapd.so libslapd.so.0.0.0 W: fedora-ds-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/fedora-ds/libds_admin.so libds_admin.so.0.0.0 I think that these can be ignored, rpmlint doesn't seem to handle this case appropriately * %check is not present; There is no test code in the districution. * shared libraries are present, ldconfig called in %post & %postun * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * header files are in -devel package * unversioned .so files in -devel package * no pkconfig file * no libtool .la droppings. Other notes: * "-p" should be used to preserve timestamps when installing slapi-plugin.h * Include a comment near the "Source0" line that indicates that the "fedora-ds-cvs.sh" script should be used to generate the tarball. * Release should be 0.1.%{cvsdate}%{?dist} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:50:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:50:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141550.l1EFoEnO015106@bugzilla.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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-14 10:50 EST ------- > X * package is named appropriately > . 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage Fixed. > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. > X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > . See above about naming convention Fixed > X* rpmlint on .srpm and rpms gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > W: dtdparser non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: > "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", > "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", > "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", > "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", > "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", > "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", > "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", > "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System > Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System > Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User > Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". This warning can be ignored. > E: dtdparser tag-not-utf8 %changelog > The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8. > . use iconv to convert to UTF8 Fixed. > E: dtdparser non-utf8-spec-file dtdparser.spec > The character encoding of the spec file is not UTF-8. Convert it for > example using iconv(1). > . use iconv to convert to UTF8 Fixed. > W: dtdparser mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 36) > The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a > cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. > . Replace the tabs with spaces (:set tabexpand :%retab in vim) Fixed. > W: dtdparser non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: > "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", > "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", > "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", > "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", > "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", > "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", > "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", > "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System > Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System > Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User > Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". This warning can be ignored. > E: dtdparser tag-not-utf8 %changelog > The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8. > . use iconv to convert to UTF8 Fixed. > W: dtdparser-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: > "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", > "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", > "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", > "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", > "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", > "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", > "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", > "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System > Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System > Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User > Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". This warning can be ignored. > E: dtdparser-javadoc tag-not-utf8 %changelog > The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8. > . use iconv to convert to UTF8 Fixed. > E: dtdparser-javadoc zero-length > /usr/share/javadoc/dtdparser-1.21/package-list > + I checked the build root on a local build and this seems to be created by > the javadoc task in ant. This can probably be ignored? This warning can be ignored because the file is automated and thus, changing on a daily basis. > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > . minor fixes needed Fixed. > X make a -doc sub-package if necessary > Standardize the javadoc package handling around > https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html > - see > >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b Fixed. > X* package should own all directories and files > + Use jpackage-utils in Requires(x), Requires since installing to > %{_javadir}/%{_javadocdir} Fixed. > X* %doc files should not affect runtime > . javadoc should use %doc for its files Fixed. > X* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPM > rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/dtdparser-* > dtdparser = 0:1.21-3jpp > dtdparser-javadoc = 0:1.21-3jpp > rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/noarch/dtdparser-* > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 > rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > . Requires needs jpakage-utils as mentioned earlier > . Should have a requires on java? Fixed. The src rpm can be found at this link: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/dtdparser/dtdparser-1.21-3jpp.1.src.rpm Let me know if there's anything else I need to fix or forgot to fix. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:50:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141550.l1EFoGFx015119@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 10:50 EST ------- Well, I struggled with sonata and finally I just found that I don't know at all about mpd... Oops... So currently I judge that this application perhaps works with mpd (because I don't know about mpd) and assign this bug to myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:53:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141553.l1EFrhpZ015525@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 10:53 EST ------- * change devel defattr, current is broken. I suggest using everywhere %defattr(-, root, root, -) * icons should be installed with -m644, like install -p -m644 tn5250-48x48.png $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/tn5250.png Same for tcap and terminfo files * You shouldn't touch all the files, only the the ones that had their timestamps messed up, I guess configure, configure.in and Makefile.in -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:32:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:32:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141532.l1EFW3Hl013478@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(ruben at rubenkerkhof| |.com) | ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-14 10:32 EST ------- Ok, then please change the Source0 url to the correct source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 15:58:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141558.l1EFwclb016030@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-14 10:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > * source files match upstream - no differences found when comparing included > tarball with tarball generated by included script > ! package meets naming and packaging guidelines. > Perhaps should use just GPL as the license tag? I was told that its fine as thats what it is > E: fedora-ds dir-or-file-in-tmp /var/tmp/fedora-ds > > Is this directory really needed? per instance run time files go inside that dir > W: fedora-ds log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/fedora-ds > > Is there something built into the directory server to rotate log files? FDS handles its own log rotation > I think that these can be ignored, rpmlint doesn't seem to handle this case > appropriately I agree > Other notes: > > * "-p" should be used to preserve timestamps when installing > slapi-plugin.h I agree > * Include a comment near the "Source0" line that indicates that the > "fedora-ds-cvs.sh" script should be used to generate the tarball. > > * Release should be 0.1.%{cvsdate}%{?dist} > Guidelines dont mention where the disttag should go in this case. I think its fine as is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:01:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:01:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141601.l1EG1cNq016333@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 11:01 EST ------- * remove the .gz in scriptlets * remove gzip -9nf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_infodir}/* * gawk and perl are also needed during the build, since their values are substituted using sed, in some scripts. Therefore they should be buildrequires. Same for m4 if I'm not wrong. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:15:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:15:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141615.l1EGFu38017502@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 11:15 EST ------- Could you please add a comment explaining how you generated the cvs snapshot such that sources may be checked. Also I think that it would be better to remove the .gz in install-info scriptlets. Also I suggest adding a Requires for latex2html, and maybe for tetex-tex4ht (after the merge). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:16:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:16:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141616.l1EGGDIW017544@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From niles at rickniles.com 2007-02-14 11:16 EST ------- I'm so sorry I've been out of touch, I give approval to whomever wants to take the ball on this. I just want to get it done. I really appreciate all the effort. Rick. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:17:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:17:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227049] Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141617.l1EGHYlA017742@bugzilla.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: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227049 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:19:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:19:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228294] Review Request: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141619.l1EGJm5T018058@bugzilla.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: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228294 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-14 11:19 EST ------- 1. good. ok. 2. Well, it was recently decided that the current preferred buildroot should be made mandatory. See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070208 The longer term plan is to have rpmbuild setup some sane buildroot and not need to specify it in the spec file at all. So, could you pretty please change it, and then I can approve this (and gkrellm-moon). ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:21:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:21:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227198] Review Request: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141621.l1EGLtUH018287@bugzilla.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: jpgalleg - JPEG library for the Allegro game library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227198 ------- Additional Comments From guthrie at counterexample.org 2007-02-14 11:21 EST ------- My apologies. I was not aware of that. Thanks for the info. (As you can tell, I'm *really* new at this. Hence, why I didn't make this an official review.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:22:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:22:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] New: Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter 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=228707 Summary: Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: SRPM URL: Description: Kobo Deluxe is a 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter with a simple and responsive control system - which you'll need to tackle the tons of enemy ships that shoot at you, chase you, circle around you shooting, or even launch other ships at you, while you're trying to destroy the labyrinth shaped bases. There are 50 action packed levels with smoothly increasing difficulty, and different combinations of enemies that require different tactics to be dealt with successfully. --- Notice that Kobo Deluxe has an interesting highscore system, which requires a global writable dir. Its far from easy to modify the highscore code so that it can do its thing and then quickly drop any additional sgid rights. Thus I've choosen to run Kobo Deluxe sgid to its own gid kobodl, so that any holes in kobo cannot be used to create and feed corrupt highscore files to other sgid games highscore using games. The kobodl gid is created in %pre. Notice that the gid never gets removed, as some files with this gid may be left behind after uninstall. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:22:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:22:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141622.l1EGMrpT018502@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 11:22 EST ------- The vpflib license issue seems to be solved, please include all the documentation you found in a file to explain the issue, where you found the information and so on. Maybe even better would be to propose a patch for the LICENSE file for upstream. For gmath.c, using blas/lapack seems fine to me. I guess that the gsl could also be used instead. Use whatever you prefer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:24:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:24:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141624.l1EGOobk018769@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-14 11:24 EST ------- OOPS, hit submit before giving the SPEC and SRPM urls, here they are: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/KoboDeluxe.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/KoboDeluxe-0.4-0.1.pre10.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:30:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:30:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141630.l1EGUTqd019201@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 11:30 EST ------- I don't know if the dependency on perl(Text::Unidecode) is detected automatically. If not, it should be added after the merge. texi2html could own $sysconfdir/texinfo/ and $datadir/texinfo/ together with texinfo, since users may want to put an htmlxref.cnf in those directories, which could be used by texi2html, and makeinfo (once it is implemented in makeinfo). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:30:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:30:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141630.l1EGUuec019251@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 niles at rickniles.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(niles at rickniles.co| |m) | ------- Additional Comments From niles at rickniles.com 2007-02-14 11:30 EST ------- Thanks again to Balint for taking up the effort on this. Sorry I've been out of touch. Rick. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:32:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:32:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141632.l1EGWONJ019454@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-14 11:32 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > Could you please add a comment explaining how you generated the > cvs snapshot such that sources may be checked. After checking it out from cvs I did: autoreconf ./configure make dist what generated the source tarball for me. I renamed it to reflect that it's not an official release, but a prerelease made from a CVS snapshot. > Also I think that it would be better to remove the .gz in > install-info scriptlets. No problem to remove it. > Also I suggest adding a Requires for latex2html, and maybe for > tetex-tex4ht (after the merge). I'm going to add the latex2html Requires. I'm not quite sure we want to add tex4ht dependency as it's not in Core and used only in examples? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:34:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:34:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141634.l1EGYDPV019689@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-14 11:34 EST ------- done in -14 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:37:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:37:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141637.l1EGbcB5020035@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 11:37 EST ------- Well, then Balint, please update your spec/srpm for this package, too. Currently mockbuild doesn't pass because of some minor reason. Please check my comment 32. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:39:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:39:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141639.l1EGdv4k020357@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-14 11:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > > * Release should be 0.1.%{cvsdate}%{?dist} > > > Guidelines dont mention where the disttag should go in this case. I think its > fine as is. The current release tag of 0.1.%{?dist}%{?cvsdate} will expand to 0.1..fc720070213 if build in the Extras buildsystem, since the expansion of %{?dist} includes a leading dot. The DistTag page (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag), which is referenced from the package naming guidelines page (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines) says: "Basically, follow the Packaging/NamingGuidelines for how to set the value for Release, then append %{?dist} to the end." So I think that the guidelines do say where to put the dist tag and Comment #5 is right. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:43:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:43:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141643.l1EGhmPR020765@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-14 11:43 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > I don't know if the dependency on perl(Text::Unidecode) is > detected automatically. If not, it should be added after > the merge. Nope, only these perl requires are autodetected: perl(Cwd) perl(Exporter) perl(File::Spec) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(POSIX) perl(strict) perl(vars) > texi2html could own $sysconfdir/texinfo/ and $datadir/texinfo/ > together with texinfo, since users may want to put an htmlxref.cnf > in those directories, which could be used by texi2html, and > makeinfo (once it is implemented in makeinfo). Hmmm, won't this clash with texinfo? %{_datadir}/texinfo is owned by texinfo itself already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 16:50:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:50:41 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141650.l1EGofhs021284@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-14 11:50 EST ------- Some comments from the rabble seats: - I don't think including all the old firmware files is necessary just the latest should be enough, as all recent kernels work with it - The license text in some of the older releases IMHO is different -- shipping just the latest license file might be problematic - I'm wondering if it's wise to mark the license as %doc, as someone could use "--excludedocs" with the package and won't get the license installed, which might be problematic - I'd in any case would package a symlink to the license as %doc that will get installed in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/, so users can find the license (or in this case the symlink pointing to it) where they normally will search for it. Some of the above issues might apply to the ipw2100 package, too -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 17:00:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:00:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141700.l1EH0SkR022172@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 12:00 EST ------- Well, then I will do the formal review for sonata-1.0.1-1 * Python related Requies - Well, requirement related to python modules are not detected automatically by rpmbuild and this must be checked manually. So: --------------------------------------------------------- # LANG=C grep import `rpm -ql sonata` | grep -v Binary | sed -e 's|^.*:||' | sed -e 's|^[ \t][ \t]*||' | sort | uniq # import gnome, gnome.ui from SOAPpy import WSDL -> SOAPpy import ConfigParser import dbus -> dbus-python import dbus.glib -> dbus-python import dbus.service -> dbus-python import egg.trayicon -> gnome-python2-libegg import gc import getopt import gettext import gobject -> pygobject import gtk -> pygtk2 import locale import mmkeys import mpdclient3 import os import pango -> pygtk2 import shutil import socket import sonata import subprocess import sugar (not available) import sys import tagpy (not available) import threading import urllib, urllib2 ------------------------------------------------------------- So, please add "dbus-python gnome-python2-libegg" to Requires. Well, other things are okay. Please fix the issue above. ------------------------------------------------------ This package (sonata) is APPROVED by me. ------------------------------------------------------ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 17:01:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:01:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228294] Review Request: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141701.l1EH10HR022287@bugzilla.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: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228294 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-14 12:00 EST ------- Argh. A useless stupid change is guidelines. The "id" execution to build up the buildroot has been known to make my mach rebuilds fail, which is the main technical reason why I have always avoided it. I've asked on the extras-list what the rationale behind this change is... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 17:12:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:12:03 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141712.l1EHC3iE023182@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-14 12:12 EST ------- - You are right about not having to include all the old firmwares, but after checking, FC5 (which I want to support) ships with ipw220 "git-1.0.8", which requires the 2.4 firmware to work. Shipping the 2.4 firmware will allow someone to simply install this package after an install and be able to "yum update" the system, without having to also find a way to install the latest kernel. I'll cut back to only 2.4 + 3.0 if that's ok with you. Once support for FC5 is gone, I'll drop the 2.4 firmware. - The LICENSE files from 2.4 and 3.0 are identical, I've just checked. - I hadn't thought about --excludedocs so indeed the LICENSE file provided in the firmware directory shouldn't be tagged as %doc since its presence is mandatory. I'll make the symlink you suggest (in the ipw2100 package too). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 17:20:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:20:44 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141720.l1EHKiLN023911@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-14 12:20 EST ------- http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2200-firmware/ipw2200-firmware-3.0-5.src.rpm http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2200-firmware/ipw2200-firmware.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 17:22:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:22:17 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217350=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2100-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2100_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141722.l1EHMH6m024096@bugzilla.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: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-14 12:22 EST ------- http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2100-firmware/ipw2100-firmware-1.3-5.src.rpm http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2100-firmware/ipw2100-firmware.spec * Wed Feb 14 2007 Matthias Saou 1.3-5 - Don't mark the LICENSE in /lib/firmware as %%doc since it could be excluded when using --excludedocs, symlink a file in %%doc to it instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 17:41:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:41:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227069] Review Request: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141741.l1EHf1D3025729@bugzilla.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: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227069 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-14 12:40 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148075) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148075&action=view) patch for 1.1b7 to clear up issues > X package is named appropriately > . release should be of the form 0.Z.tag.Xjpp.Y%{?dist} Fixed. rpmvercmp used to verify that epoch bump not necessary. > X license field matches the actual license. > . according to their website, it's Apache-style Fixed. > X specfile name matches %{name} > . specfile should be jaxen-bootstrap.spec Yup. > X verify source and patches > . where do the xsl and xml files come from? > . we should note why dom4j is needed Notes added. I can't find the source upstream anymore so I don't know how to verify the md5sums :( > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. > X %{?dist} needs to be added Fixed. > X license text included in package and marked with %doc Fixed. > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > W: jaxen-bootstrap invalid-license Open Source > > X fix this Fixed. > W: jaxen-bootstrap unversioned-explicit-provides jaxen-bootstrap > > . I think this is an unnecessary provide Removed. > W: jaxen-bootstrap rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > . get rid of the rm -rf line at the beginning of prep ... Done. > E: jaxen-bootstrap no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install > > ... and add it to the beginning of %install Fixed. > W: jaxen-bootstrap mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 37) > > X fix this (emacs M-x untabify) Done. > X Vendor tag should not be used > X Distribution tag should not be used Fixed, fixed. > ? consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps (%prep line 4 Unnecessary as it's only used for bootstrap building. > X final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > . remove unnecessary Provides: %{name}? Done. I still can't build, but I think other than the that the source can't be found, everything is taken care of by this patch. Except perhaps changing the licence to BSD which is what I think it actually is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 17:43:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:43:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225710] Merge Review: dtach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141743.l1EHhH4R025937@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dtach https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225710 lhh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From lhh at redhat.com 2007-02-14 12:43 EST ------- Closing->NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 17:44:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:44:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141744.l1EHi9kY025995@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-14 12:43 EST ------- I will update mainstream. Olso need to get rid of "math recipies", i will use lapack for this. Let me breath, and in max 2 days i come up with final 3.2.0beta release. BTW, i fixed mainstream to be able run on 64bit platform too, x86_64 was broken, last night i merge a patch the fix it forever ;-), and again over the top i got zero gcc warnings despite the factmaintainer request to took breath into win32 port too ;-) It was pain in the ass, but its done. So, for tomorrow i got new tasks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 17:58:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:58:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141758.l1EHwLQU026846@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-14 12:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > ------------------------------------------------------------- > So, please add "dbus-python gnome-python2-libegg" to > Requires. Right. New SPEC: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/rpm/sonata/sonata.spec New SRPM: http://ecik.nonlogic.org/rpm/sonata/sonata-1.0.1-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 17:52:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:52:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141752.l1EHqKi7026471@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-14 12:52 EST ------- In reply to comment #8: > I'll rebuild the package without the ownership of the logfile today. Sounds good. > That would finish the review then iirc, right? :) Yeah, thats the last blocking issue I see. >And thanks again for the good review, work and the really helpful comments. >This way we can improve the review guidelines as well, so everyone can benefit >from it. Thank you for quick fixes and good replies. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:07:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:07:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227069] Review Request: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141807.l1EI7qiq027412@bugzilla.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: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227069 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |227125 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-14 13:07 EST ------- I've got a 1.1 final spec. I can't make the SRPM until xom is finished, but if I used a canned upstream xom and comment out the BR, it works fine. I've put it here: http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen-bootstrap.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:08:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:08:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141808.l1EI84pd027431@bugzilla.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: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227125 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |227069 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:08:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:08:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227115] Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141808.l1EI8tph027458@bugzilla.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: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227115 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-14 13:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > MUST: > * package is named appropriately > - match upstream tarball or project name > X upstream project is called saxon. Is this name change for compatibility reasons? Yes, changelog entries indicates: - Changed package name for compatibility > - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for > consistency > - specfile should be %{name}.spec > + ok > - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or > something) > X version starts with B. Saxon B is the open source saxon, the B should > probably be removed. Got rid of it. and checked rpmdev-vercmp: pcheung at to-jpackage1 ~]$ rpmdev-vercmp Epoch1 :0 Version1 :B.8.7 Release1 :1jpp Epoch2 :0 Version2 :8.7 Release2 :1jpp.1.fc7 0:8.7-1jpp.1.fc7 is newer so epoch can stay at 0. > Also since this is a jpp package, a %{?dist} needs to be addded > Added > - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be > not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name > * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? > + OSI-approved > - not a kernel module > - not shareware > - is it covered by patents? > - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator > - no binary firmware > * license field matches the actual license. > + ok > * license is open source-compatible. > - use acronyms for licences where common > + ok > * specfile name matches %{name} > + ok > * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on > how to generate the the source drop; ie. > + ok, link still works and md5sums match > # svn export blah/tag blah > # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah > * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. > * correct buildroot > X incorrect buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > Fixed > * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > X dist is missing Added > > * license text included in package and marked with %doc > X there is a doc directory, but no clear licensing text in itself. Perhaps > the following file should be included in %doc: doc/conditions/intro.html? > done > * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? > useless?) > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > X > rpmlint saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp.src.rpm > W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8 unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_transform_impl Added = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} > W: saxon8 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47) Fixed > > - warning about group can be ignored, other issues should be fixed. > > * changelog should be in one of these formats: > > * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 > - And fix the link syntax. > > * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 > - And fix the link syntax. > > * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating > - 0.6-4 > - And fix the link syntax. > > * Packager tag should not be used > + ok > * Vendor tag should not be used > X this needs to be removed > Done > * Distribution tag should not be used > X this needs to be removed > Done > * use License and not Copyright > + ok > * Summary tag should not end in a period > + ok > * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) > + ok > * specfile is legible > - a couple of minor issues with tabs not lining up in information section > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > * BuildRequires are proper > - builds in mock will flush out problems here > - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: > bash > bzip2 > coreutils > cpio > diffutils > fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) > gcc > gcc-c++ > gzip > make > patch > perl > redhat-rpm-config > rpm-build > sed > tar > unzip > which > * summary should be a short and concise description of the package > + ok > * description expands upon summary (don't include installation > instructions) > + ok > * make sure lines are <= 80 characters > * specfile written in American English > + ok > * make a -doc sub-package if necessary > - see > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b > + has a doc package > * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible > + na > * don't use rpath > + na > * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) > + no config files > * GUI apps should contain .desktop files > + not a gui app > * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? > * use macros appropriately and consistently > - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS > * don't use %makeinstall > * locale data handling correct (find_lang) > - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the > end of %install > * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps > + ok > * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines > * package should probably not be relocatable > + no relocatable > * package contains code > - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent > - in general, there should be no offensive content > * package should own all directories and files > X need to include requires jpackage-utils to own /usr/share/java[,doc] > Added Requires:jpackage-utils > * there should be no %files duplicates > * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present > + ok > * %clean should be present > + ok > * %doc files should not affect runtime > * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www > * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > X > rpmlint RPMS/noarch/saxon8-* > W: saxon8 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8 no-documentation > - see comments above about %doc for licenses. Done > W: saxon8 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives > - can we get around this dangling symlink? I don't think so, let me know if you know of some other way of doing this. > W: saxon8-demo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-demo no-documentation > W: saxon8-dom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-dom no-documentation > W: saxon8-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: saxon8-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > - this should be fixed Got rid of post for javadoc, and versioned dir, %ghost, etc. > W: saxon8-jdom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-jdom no-documentation > W: saxon8-manual non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-sql non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-sql no-documentation > W: saxon8-xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-xom no-documentation > W: saxon8-xpath non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML > W: saxon8-xpath no-documentation > > Note: group warnings can be ignored. > > SHOULD: > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > * package should build on i386 > * package should build in mock > > Also added a missing BR of ant. spec file and srpms can be found at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/220/saxon8.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/221/saxon8-8.7-1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:09:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:09:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141809.l1EI9shD027544@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 13:09 EST ------- Well, okay. Please add this package to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded and wait until cvsadmin reports to this bug that it is ready to import this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:20:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:20:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228296] Review Request: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141820.l1EIKjnC028291@bugzilla.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: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228296 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-14 13:20 EST ------- Generic filenames have nothing to do with the Fedora CVS nor the lookaside cache. Both manage them just fine (lookaside cache using md5sums in dir names for different revisions of the same file). But when 'rpm -i'ing a bunch of source rpms locally it may very well become a problem. Adding specfile comments about the licensing stuff won't be visible to users of this package, therefore a seprately installed file included in the binary package detailing what was done is clearly a better solution in my opinion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:21:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:21:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141821.l1EILMm5028414@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-14 13:21 EST ------- Umm?? I saw that you added this package to SyncNeeded, however no one approved this package yet... Mockbuild still fails and some fixes is needed. Note: Please increase the release number each time you modify your spec file (and add some description to %changlog accordingly). Creating new srpm/spec without release number changed causes confusion on the people who are checking the package... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:18:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:18:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141818.l1EIIuJ6028021@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-14 13:18 EST ------- Updated to work around rpmlint: SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Acme-Damn-0.03-2.fc6.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Acme-Damn.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:21:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:21:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141821.l1EIL4Rs028345@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |paul at city-fan.org Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-14 13:21 EST ------- I'll take a look at this one; I'll have initial comments tomorrow -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:28:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:28:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141828.l1EISYVB029272@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-14 13:28 EST ------- Also added a missing BR: xerces-j2. spec file and srpm are in the same location as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027#c8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:31:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:31:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141831.l1EIV9xO029380@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 ------- Additional Comments From rmeggins at redhat.com 2007-02-14 13:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > W: fedora-ds invalid-license GPL plus extensions > W: fedora-ds-devel invalid-license GPL plus extensions > W: fedora-ds-debuginfo invalid-license GPL plus extensions > W: fedora-ds invalid-license GPL plus extensions > > Perhaps should use just GPL as the license tag? I don't want to give people the impression that the license is just plain old GPL. The extension is important for those people who want to write and distribute plugins with the directory server. So if there is some other way to indicate that, I'm open to suggestions. > * %check is not present; There is no test code in the districution. We're still working on that, being able to open source our test suites. Is it necessary to have something for %check? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:43:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:43:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141843.l1EIhSGY030299@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-14 13:43 EST ------- This is no longer needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:51:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:51:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222522] Review Request: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141851.l1EIpQSF030912@bugzilla.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: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222522 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-14 13:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16) > Issues: > > 1. Minor: Could include COPYING file? Also, possibly: > AUTHORS Changelog NEWS README TODO Should be in there - see the shenanigans in %install. > 2. Possibly a missing BuildRequires: > > checking for AccountNumberCheck_new in -lktoblzcheck... no > checking ktoblzcheck.h usability... no > checking ktoblzcheck.h presence... no > checking for ktoblzcheck.h... no Not shipped in Core/Extras. If someone wants to maintain it, I can add a buildreq, but I'm not really interested. > 3. According to the COPYING file: > "The banking backend "AqYellowNet" is currently only available binary-only > because of a nondisclosure agreement." > So, should this code just be removed from the source package entirely? > I don't think it's being shipped/linked, but the .so is still in the source. *shrug* We could. It's not like MP3 or something where we remove it so we're not violating any license. > 4. rpmlint says: .. > b) > E: aqbanking zero-length /usr/share/aqbanking/bankinfo/us/bic.idx > E: aqbanking-devel zero-length /usr/share/doc/aqbanking-devel-2.1.0/01-OVERVIEW > > Suggest: Could possibly remove these? Or ping upstream about it. Upstream poked. > 5. Minor: use dist tag? It changes ABI, so it's unlikely to be rebased between releases. But it could be added if needed later. > 6. This is an old version... upstream is at 2.2.8. > Any reason not to upgrade to that version? Want to get stack reviewed, then upgrade stack. > 7. 3 outstanding bugs, might look at the multilib conflicts and see if they > are solveable at this time? 205589 and 228321 are both solved in this package with the split into separate packages. 212518 will be solved with an upgrade. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 18:51:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:51:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141851.l1EIpUgg030928@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-14 13:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #5) > > * %check is not present; There is no test code in the districution. > > We're still working on that, being able to open source our test suites. Is it > necessary to have something for %check? If there's no test code available, then there's no need for a check. It's not the job of a packager to write test code. However, if there was test code, then yes, I'd block the package if there wasn't a %check section. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 19:07:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:07:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141907.l1EJ70Z8031732@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From mgarski at post.pl 2007-02-14 14:06 EST ------- Updated package: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/tibetan-machine-uni-fonts.spec http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/tibetan-machine-uni-fonts-0.0.20040806-2.src.rpm Thanks for reviewing :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 19:21:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:21:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208613] Review Request: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141921.l1EJLHBJ000435@bugzilla.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: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208613 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-14 14:21 EST ------- Is this going to happen? From my perspective, the pros/cons are: Pros: . no need to bug Jakub on libgcj requests -> this is the biggie IMO. I know I feel bad when I want one small class library fix and it requires getting Jakub to spend time spinning all of gcc . no need to wait for entire gcc test suite to complete . can potentially push java-gcj-compat directly into libgcj SRPM . distro compiler changes independently of java class library => can lead to more bugfixes for the latter without potentially destabilizing the former Cons: . skew between the two SRPMS? . no real upstream source for the libgcj SRPM's Source as it's derived from the gcc SRPM . will patches need to be maintained in multiple places? . will we be duplicating test suite running? -- 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 Wed Feb 14 19:29:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:29:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208613] Review Request: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141929.l1EJTs0i001350@bugzilla.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: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208613 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-14 14:29 EST ------- I think this should happen so that we have faster turnaround time for pure-class library libgcj bugs. Jakub, do you think this is reasonable? As Andrew said, it doesn't seem reasonable to ask Jakub to do a multi-hour respin of the gcc rpms for the backport of a single patch from GNU Classpath. That said, if this is going to happen for Fedora 7 I'm saying right now that we'll need an extension past the February 20th freeze. Jesse, is there a procedure for requesting such an extension? -- 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 Wed Feb 14 19:30:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:30:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141930.l1EJUgQ7001478@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 ------- Additional Comments From rmeggins at redhat.com 2007-02-14 14:30 EST ------- > W: fedora-ds log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/fedora-ds > > Is there something built into the directory server to rotate log files? Fedora Directory Server does not use syslog, in case you were wondering. That is also on our to-do list. I've addressed all of the concerns (except for GPL vs. GPL + exception) and posted new files, same links as above: SRPM URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/sources/fds110a1/fedora-ds-1.1.0-0.1.20070213.src.rpm Source URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/sources/fds110a1/fedora-ds-1.1.0-20070213.tar.bz2 Spec URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/sources/fds110a1/fedora-ds.spec Other sources: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/sources/fds110a1/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 19:31:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:31:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227115] Review Request: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141931.l1EJVMJn001594@bugzilla.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: saxon8-B.8.7-1jpp - Java Basic XPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0, and XQuery 1.0 implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227115 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-14 14:31 EST ------- Looks good to me. Approved. Note: this package was checked using dependencies not yet in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 19:41:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:41:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208613] Review Request: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141941.l1EJfn8B002659@bugzilla.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: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208613 ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-14 14:41 EST ------- Nothing official :/ -- 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 Wed Feb 14 19:43:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:43:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141943.l1EJhuRI002938@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |karsten at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 14:43 EST ------- This is approved. I assigned it to you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 19:44:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:44:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227049] Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141944.l1EJiadl002984@bugzilla.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: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227049 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-14 14:44 EST ------- Note: When I did a rpmbuild, I had to disable the tests because one of them was failing. This needs to be fixed. MUST: X package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name --> Should be 0:1.6.1-2jpp.1%{?dist}. * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved --> Okay. * license field matches the actual license. --> Okay. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common --> Okay. * specfile name matches %{name} --> Okay. * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah --> Doesn't apply. * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. --> Okay. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --> This needs to be fixed. X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) --> See above. X license text included in package and marked with %doc --> Currently, this is not the case. Under %files, we have "%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt". Should we change that to "%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt" or simply "%doc LICENSE.txt"?? * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) --> Okay. * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) --> Okay. X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there --> W: dom4j non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: dom4j strange-permission dom4j_rundemo.sh 0755 W: dom4j mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 85) * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. --> Okay. * Packager tag should not be used --> Okay. X Vendor tag should not be used --> Remove %Vendor. X Distribution tag should not be used --> Remove %Distribution. * use License and not Copyright --> Okay. * Summary tag should not end in a period --> Okay. * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) --> Okay. * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement --> Okay. X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 --> I made a note of this at the top. * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which --> Okay. X summary should be a short and concise description of the package --> %Summary should not be the name of the package. * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) --> Okay. X make sure lines are <= 80 characters --> Some lines have more than 80 characters on them. * specfile written in American English --> Okay. * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b --> Okay. * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible --> Okay. * don't use rpath --> Okay. * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) --> Okay. * GUI apps should contain .desktop files --> Okay. * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? --> Okay. * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS --> Okay. * don't use %makeinstall --> Okay. * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install --> Okay. * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps --> Okay. * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines --> Okay. * package should probably not be relocatable --> Okay. * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content --> Okay. * package should own all directories and files --> Okay. * there should be no %files duplicates --> Okay. * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present --> Okay. * %clean should be present --> Okay. X %doc files should not affect runtime --> Since I was not able to do a rpmbuild, I was not able to check this. * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www --> Okay. X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs --> Since I was not able to do a rpmbuild, I was not able to check this. X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs --> Since I was not able to do a rpmbuild, I was not able to check this. SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc --> See above. X package should build on i386 --> See above. X package should build in mock --> This needs to be done. One other thing to be fixed: remove "define section free". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 19:45:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:45:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227059] Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141945.l1EJjMIO003056@bugzilla.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: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227059 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-14 14:44 EST ------- X indicates issues needed fixing. MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - ok - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - ok - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - ok - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name - ok * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? yes- MIT - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware * license field matches the actual license. - ok * license is open source-compatible. - ok - use acronyms for licences where common * specfile name matches %{name} - ok * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - ok - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) Please fix Release: to 1jpp.1%{?dist} X license text included in package and marked with %doc license is not marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing But this can be ignored. * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used X Vendor tag should not be used X Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) * specfile is legible - When adding gcj support, please get rid of BuildArch: noarch - please fix the javadoc symlink * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) X make sure lines are <= 80 characters line 127 is longer than 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok W: httpunit no-documentation W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok W: httpunit-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok W: httpunit-demo no-documentation W: httpunit-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation - ok W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm W: httpunit-manual non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok W: httpunit-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2 W: httpunit-manual symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2 SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 19:50:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:50:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227085] Review Request: maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Maven Wagon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141950.l1EJoOke003359@bugzilla.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: maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Maven Wagon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227085 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 19:50:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:50:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227054] Review Request: excalibur-avalon-logkit-2.1-8jpp - Excalibur's Logkit package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141950.l1EJoSIZ003374@bugzilla.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: excalibur-avalon-logkit-2.1-8jpp - Excalibur's Logkit package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227054 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 19:51:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:51:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227059] Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141951.l1EJpJ6g003494@bugzilla.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: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227059 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 19:52:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:52:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227037] Review Request: aspectwerkz-2.0-2jpp - AOP for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702141952.l1EJqVPf003685@bugzilla.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: aspectwerkz-2.0-2jpp - AOP for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227037 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 20:15:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:15:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142015.l1EKFJ5t006009@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 15:15 EST ------- Hopefully a very last comment, you didn't used %dist, and I think it is a good choice. This package shouldn't ever need a rebuild (except to check that it actually builds). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 20:17:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:17:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142017.l1EKHea4006163@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 ------- Additional Comments From rmeggins at redhat.com 2007-02-14 15:17 EST ------- Dennis found a typo in the spec file - should have been install -p -m 644, not install -m -p 644. This has been fixed and uploaded to the same links as above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 20:08:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:08:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142008.l1EK8tSc005470@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 15:08 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148084) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148084&action=view) use autoconf213 info file and add a comment saying it's legacy -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 20:07:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:07:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142007.l1EK7Lkk005373@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 15:07 EST ------- I still have 2 remarks. The rpmlint warning is ignorable W: autoconf213 devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/autoconf-2.13/acconfig.h The install-info scriptlet adds an entry for Autoconf in the Misc section in dir. It points to the latest autoconf manual and not to the autoconf213 manual. I'll attach a patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 20:05:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:05:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142005.l1EK5TRi005193@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 jeff at ocjtech.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-14 15:05 EST ------- OK, based upon the new SRPM and some feedback from the extras list about the license, I'm approving the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 20:20:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:20:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142020.l1EKK1Tx006347@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 15:20 EST ------- Many comments done for the autoconf213 are also valid here, please fix those items. * Additionally, -n autoconf-%{version} is not useful on the %setup line. * Could you please explain why you don't use config.sub/guess from autoconf? * Prereq(post,preun): should be Requires(post): .... Requires(preun): .... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 20:48:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:48:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142048.l1EKmRur008551@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 15:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Could you please add a comment explaining how you generated the > > cvs snapshot such that sources may be checked. > > After checking it out from cvs I did: > autoreconf > ./configure > make dist > > what generated the source tarball for me. I tried but it didn't worked. There were permissions issues for the just updated files. Since the autotools generated files are already there, why not repackage the fresh cvs checkout? It is easier to verify the sources then. Here is something that could work and be reproducible: cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous at cvs.savannah.nongnu.org:/sources/texi2html co -D 20070214 -d texi2html-1.77-20070214cvs texi2html cd texi2html-1.77-20070214cvs chmod a+x autogen.sh config.guess config.sub configure install-sh mdate-sh missing mkinstalldirs buildt2h.sh doc/mdate-sh cd .. tar cjvf texi2html-1.77-20070214cvs.tar.bz2 texi2html-1.77-20070214cvs > I'm going to add the latex2html Requires. I'm not quite sure we want to add > tex4ht dependency as it's not in Core and used only in examples? It is not really an example, it is an init file. With texi2html --init-file tex4ht.init httex is used to render @tex and @math similarly than -l2h uses latex2html. Of course the dependency could only be added after the merge. It adds functionality, however, it also brings in the whole TeX stuff, so adding it as a Requires or not is not obvious. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 20:54:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:54:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227111] Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142054.l1EKsaur009236@bugzilla.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: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227111 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 20:56:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:56:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142056.l1EKuwPm009353@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-14 15:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > Nope, only these perl requires are autodetected: > perl(Cwd) > perl(Exporter) > perl(File::Spec) > perl(Getopt::Long) > perl(POSIX) > perl(strict) > perl(vars) Ok, so Text::Unidecode should be added, but after the merge, since it is in extras. It is not surprising that it isn't detected, since weird things are done to ensure that it is detected at runtime. > > texi2html could own $sysconfdir/texinfo/ and $datadir/texinfo/ > > together with texinfo, since users may want to put an htmlxref.cnf > > in those directories, which could be used by texi2html, and > > makeinfo (once it is implemented in makeinfo). > > Hmmm, won't this clash with texinfo? %{_datadir}/texinfo is owned by texinfo > itself already. Both texi2html and makeinfo are able to take advantage of what is in %{_datadir}/texinfo and %_sysconfdir/texinfo/ (more precisely of an htmlxref.cnf file) since we agreed on the location and format of htmlxref.cnf. Similarly both should put the html manuals in %{_datadir}/texinfo/html. Otherwise said %{_datadir}/texinfo/ is not specific of an implementation of a texinfo to html converter, but of the texinfo language. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:13:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:13:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142113.l1ELDVNx010808@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 toshio at tiki-lounge.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|197974 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-14 16:13 EST ------- I have a draft of the new guideline here:: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl I'm sending it out to the fedora-packaging list for suggestions and comments today. caillon: If you could talk a bit about the Mozilla case and pose any suggestions you might have about getting your Mozilla workflow to fit comfortably in one of those sections that would be beneficial. Since it seems no one here is demanding that file-roller fits under this rule, I'm unblocking this review from FE-GUIDELINES with the expectation that the Soure0: line would contain the canonical URL. If that is in error, please feel free to let me know along with some suggestions for enhancing the draft. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:13:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:13:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197974] Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142113.l1ELDh61010828@bugzilla.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: Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines Alias: FE-GUIDELINES https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197974 toshio at tiki-lounge.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn|225751 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:15:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:15:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142115.l1ELFNSF010918@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:16:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:16:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142116.l1ELG0nk010984@bugzilla.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: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:19:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:19:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227049] Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142119.l1ELJISE011166@bugzilla.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: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227049 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:26:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:26:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227059] Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142126.l1ELQYol011608@bugzilla.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: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227059 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-14 16:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > X indicates issues needed fixing. > MUST: > * package is named appropriately > - match upstream tarball or project name - ok > - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for > consistency > - specfile should be %{name}.spec - ok > - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or > something) - ok > - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be > not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name - ok > * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? yes- MIT > - OSI-approved > - not a kernel module > - not shareware > - is it covered by patents? > - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator > - no binary firmware > * license field matches the actual license. - ok > * license is open source-compatible. - ok > - use acronyms for licences where common > * specfile name matches %{name} - ok > * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - ok > - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on > how to generate the the source drop; ie. > # svn export blah/tag blah > # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah > * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. > X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > Please fix Release: to 1jpp.1%{?dist} Fixed. > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > license is not marked with %doc There's no license text included in the zip. > * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? > useless?) > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > - W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing > But this can be ignored. > * changelog should be in one of these formats: > > * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 > - And fix the link syntax. > > * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 > - And fix the link syntax. > > * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating > - 0.6-4 > - And fix the link syntax. > > * Packager tag should not be used > X Vendor tag should not be used > X Distribution tag should not be used Got rid of these. > * use License and not Copyright > * Summary tag should not end in a period > * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) > * specfile is legible > - When adding gcj support, please get rid of BuildArch: noarch > - please fix the javadoc symlink > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > * BuildRequires are proper > - builds in mock will flush out problems here > - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: > bash > bzip2 > coreutils > cpio > diffutils > fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) > gcc > gcc-c++ > gzip > make > patch > perl > redhat-rpm-config > rpm-build > sed > tar > unzip > which > * summary should be a short and concise description of the package > * description expands upon summary (don't include installation > instructions) > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > line 127 is longer than 80 characters Fixed. > * specfile written in American English > * make a -doc sub-package if necessary > - see > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b > * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible > * don't use rpath > * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) > * GUI apps should contain .desktop files > * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? > * use macros appropriately and consistently > - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS > * don't use %makeinstall > * locale data handling correct (find_lang) > - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the > end of %install > * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps > * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines > * package should probably not be relocatable > * package contains code > - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent > - in general, there should be no offensive content > * package should own all directories and files > * there should be no %files duplicates > * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present > * %clean should be present > * %doc files should not affect runtime > * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www > * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok > W: httpunit no-documentation It has no doc in the main package > W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok > W: httpunit-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok > W: httpunit-demo no-documentation No docs in demo either. > W: httpunit-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation - ok > W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Fixed javadoc stuff > W: httpunit-manual non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok > W: httpunit-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api > /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2 > W: httpunit-manual symlink-should-be-relative > /usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2 > Don't know if there's anything that we can do about this. I've added a Requires: javadoc for doc subpackage. > > SHOULD: > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > * package should build on i386 Built fine. > * package should build in mock > spec file and srpm are available at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/222/httpunit.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/223/httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:27:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:27:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142127.l1ELRKkb011694@bugzilla.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: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-14 16:26 EST ------- Updated (in same locations as posted before) -- 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 Wed Feb 14 21:30:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:30:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142130.l1ELUWef011901@bugzilla.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: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 tromey at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tromey at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tromey at redhat.com 2007-02-14 16:30 EST ------- Nope, our JDWP implementation does not include com.sun.jdi. In fact, I had never heard of that until just now :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:39:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:39:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227064] Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142139.l1ELdUGg012508@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227064 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:46:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:46:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142146.l1ELkMGQ012881@bugzilla.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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-14 16:46 EST ------- Here is a spec file of the actual package being shipped by fedora in which i split * ksirc * kdict * ktalkd * kpf * kwifimanager to another knetwork-extras http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/kdenetwork.spec Do the necessary, I'll start reviewing the package afterwards -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:47:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:47:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142147.l1ELlUic012919@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-14 16:47 EST ------- I can't say for sure, but perhaps this helps: $ rpmlint -I invalid-soname invalid-soname : The soname of the library is neither of the form lib.so. or lib-.so. The regexp used for the check is: ^lib.+(\.so\.[\.0-9]+|-[\.0-9]+\.so)$ Someone more familiar with sonames should to comment on whether there's something wrong with libexpect5.43.so. My guess would be no, don't change it, it's just unusual - cases like that are more often found in form like libexpect5-43.so or libexpect-5.43.so. Perhaps ask upstream what they think and if they'd like to change towards a more usual looking sonames for future releases? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 21:48:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:48:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142148.l1ELm0cp012946@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 ------- Additional Comments From caillon at redhat.com 2007-02-14 16:47 EST ------- Looks good from the brief glance I took, but I strongly feel this whole thing should be a "good practises" recommendation and not a requirement. If you're trying to prevent against "bad" RPMs, well you're not going to do that if there are exceptions... Even for a good SRPM, someone could simply fork an open source project, not have a repo other than the SRPM, and distribute whatever code they want that way in extras, theoretically. This has no bearing on the actual packaging or quality of RPMs. It's only redeeming quality is that it might potentially help with automated verification of upstream sources, but that does not exist right now and that potential benefit should be enough to convince most packagers to do this. There's simply no reason to make it a hard requirement IMO other than because it's always been that way (which is no real reason). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:05:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:05:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142205.l1EM50MV014121@bugzilla.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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-14 17:04 EST ------- Review for release 3.fc6: * RPM name is OK * Source 52641-amarokFS-qt3-0.4.2.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Source 53125-amarokFS.amarokscript.tar is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock * rpmlints look OK * File lists look OK * Works fine APPROVED (35 automatic checks have been run by fedora-qa) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:05:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:05:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208613] Review Request: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142205.l1EM5QpT014181@bugzilla.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: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208613 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aph at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-14 17:05 EST ------- I talked this over with Jakub, Tom Tromey and Andrew Overholt, and we came up with an alternate proposal. The main goal of splitting libgcj was to get class library fixes out to Fedora users faster. Jakub has explained to me that there are problems with that goal for Fedora updates: 1) we don't want to force users to download megabytes of updates very often (35M for a libgcj update (no debuginfo), 78M for a full gcc update (no debuginfo) and 2) we don't want to force re-prelinking more often than necessary (a libgcj update forces re-prelinking of all libraries linked to it (uses up to 10 minutes of CPU time according to Jakub). He has suggested that we instead use updates-testing as a channel for fast delivery of libgcj updates to users. In this arrangement, the process for getting a class library fix out to Fedora users would be: 1) fix GNU Classpath upstream 2) backport the fix to redhat/gcc-4_1-branch in the GCC SVN repository 3) send mail to Jakub requesting a new gcc build in Fedora 7 updates-testing Normal users would get the fix in the next gcc update, which would happen at a frequency of once every one or two months. Users who want a fix immediately could do: yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update libgcj Jakub would be prepared to do these updates-testing gcc builds as long as they weren't needed more often than once per week. The remaining concerns are: 1) Jakub is too busy on a given week to build a requested fix into updates-testing Jakub, if this were the case, would it be possible for one of us from the Java group to do the build, after you've approved the proposed changes? 2) A class library bug that should be fixed for all libgcj users (not just those aware of/able-to-use updates-testing) is found early in the one-to-two month gcc update cycle I don't have a good answer for this one. Those users will have to wait the one or two months for that update. 3) gcc will still have the same large set of BuildRequires Does releng still consider this an issue? 4) The potential for merging java-1.5.0-gcj into libgcj Jakub tells me he's open to accepting java-1.5.0-gcj constructs into the libgcj sub-rpm of the gcc spec file (alternatives, new SourceNs, etc.) so this merge can be done independent of the libgcj split. Do people think this approach is acceptable/better than the split libgcj approach? -- 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 Wed Feb 14 22:09:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:09:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208613] Review Request: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142209.l1EM9toj014419@bugzilla.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: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208613 ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-14 17:09 EST ------- in the new world we were not going to let packages linger in updates-testing for that long. I guess we could exclude glibc for longer time periods. -- 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 Wed Feb 14 22:12:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:12:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142212.l1EMCHw4014592@bugzilla.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: icu4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |fnasser at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-14 17:11 EST ------- (In reply to comment #25) > Updated (in same locations as posted before) The requires has been switched to eclipse-rcp and the eclipse jars are under %{_datadir}/eclipse/{features/plugins}. I think this is OK. APPROVED Assigning to owner to build into rawhide. Please let me know when the package is built and once verified in Rawhide I will close the 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 Wed Feb 14 22:14:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:14:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142214.l1EMEbMq014667@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(wart at kobold.org) | ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-14 17:14 EST ------- Now for the full review: rpmlint output: E: tcl invalid-soname /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so libtcl8.4.so - I'm inclined to ignore this as this is how Tcl has always named/versioned its shared libraries. Yes, it's awkward, but there are 10 years of Tcl history pressuring it to remain the same. W: tcl-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/tcl-8.4.13/tcl8.4.13/generic/tclThreadAlloc.c - See "MUSTFIX" below for a simple fix. GOOD ==== * Package and spec file named appropriately * BSD license ok, license file included * Spec file legible and in Am. English * No locales * ldconfig called appropriately * Not relocatable * build root cleaned in %clean * Headers and unversioned .so shared libs in -devel subpackage * %doc does not affect runtime * No .desktop file needed MUSTFIX ======= * Mixed use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Please decide on one or the other and use it consistently in the spec file. * Use %{_libdir} instead of %{_prefix}/%{_lib}. If you really mean %{_prefix}/lib, then be aware that %{_lib} evaluates to lib64 on x86_64 arches. * The package installs a recursive symlink: /usr/lib/tcl8.4 -> ./tcl8.4 This used to be the symlink from /usr/share/tcl8.4 -> /usr/lib/tcl8.4 * Package does not own all directories that it creates. In order to fix, and simplify the %files section, you can remove all of the %{_datadir}/... lines and replace them with a single: %{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver} * rpmlint debuginfo warning is harmless, but easily fixed by adding to %prep: chmod -x generic/tclThreadAlloc.c * The %define epoch 1 is unnecessary. If you set the Epoch: tag to '1', then rpm will implicitly define the %{epoch} variable. * Source does not match upstream. It appears that the fedora source tarball has 3 extra files: $ diff -r tcl8.4.13.upstream tcl8.4.13.fedora Only in tcl8.4.13.fedora/library/tcltest: constraints.tcl Only in tcl8.4.13.fedora/library/tcltest: files.tcl Only in tcl8.4.13.fedora/library/tcltest: testresults.tcl If these files were added to upstream's tarball after downloading, then I would recommend adding them as extra SourceX: files in the spec and committing them to CVS, instead of modifying the upstream tarball. If, however, upstream removed these files and replaced the upstream tarball without telling anyone, then you should just replace the fedora tarball with the current upstream version. * %{_mandir}/mann/* should really be part of the main package, since it contains man pages for all of the script-level commands. %{_mandir}/man3/* is correctly located in the -devel subpackage. * Is the -html patch really necessary? It doesn't seem to have any effect now that the html docs are installed from the upstream tarball and not generated at build time. * Don't bother installing/packaging the ldAix shell script. It's a wrapper for ld on AIX systems, making it pointless on Fedora. SHOULD ====== * Consider using the recommended BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Create a new package + spec file for tcl-html. There are no more source dependencies between tcl and tcl-html, and splitting them into separate spec files will allow you to tag tcl-html as BuildArch: noarch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:17:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:17:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142217.l1EMHYC4015045@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-14 17:17 EST ------- Files updated, just click above....same location. (in reply to comment #9) [...] rpmlint complains to me because... I use rawhide. [...] i've not this problem with mock building for rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:18:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:18:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142218.l1EMIj4j015156@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-14 17:18 EST ------- The old suggested buildroot is now mandatory so that is a must fix item -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:20:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:20:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227114] Review Request: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142220.l1EMKEWp015337@bugzilla.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: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227114 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-14 17:20 EST ------- spec and srpms are here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/saxon/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:42:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:42:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142242.l1EMg1BJ016631@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-14 17:41 EST ------- Done. http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/jrexx.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:44:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:44:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228782] New: Review Request: tcl-html - HTML documentation for Tcl/Tk 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=228782 Summary: Review Request: tcl-html - HTML documentation for Tcl/Tk Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: wart at kobold.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tcl-html.spec SRPM URL: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/tcl-html-8.4.13-10.src.rpm Description: HTML man pages for the Tcl/Tk script and C level APIs. This package is being moved out of the core tcl package so that it can be made noarch, and because there are no more build-time dependencies between tcl and tcl-html. The initial build/push of this package will need to be coordinated with the main tcl package to prevent both arch and noarch versions from appearing in the repo. Similarly, the initial release number for this package must be greater than the last release number for the current tcl-html subpackage in order for upgrades to work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:43:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:43:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142243.l1EMhr3J016708@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:45:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:45:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142245.l1EMjHjg016779@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |228782 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:46:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:46:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227074] Review Request: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142246.l1EMkAgN016880@bugzilla.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: jrexx-1.1.1-3jpp - Automaton based regluar expression API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227074 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-14 17:45 EST ------- APPROVED Thanks, Jeff! Matt, I believe you're going to be the owner, right? When you've built it, I'll close this rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:47:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:47:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142247.l1EMlelq016930@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fnasser at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:48:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:48:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142248.l1EMmfpp016957@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-14 17:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > SHOULD > ====== ... > > * Create a new package + spec file for tcl-html. There are no more > source dependencies between tcl and tcl-html, and splitting them > into separate spec files will allow you to tag tcl-html as > BuildArch: noarch To move forward on this point, I created a new tcl-html package for review: bug #228782 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 22:52:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:52:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142252.l1EMquoW017174@bugzilla.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: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227125 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-14 17:52 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom-1.0-3jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) > ?? * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? Yes. > ?? - OSI-approved It's LGPL so yes. > ?? - is it covered by patents? I don't think there's much we can do here. > ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) I've verified the md5sum. > NO * correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. > NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) I've added %{?dist} > NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc Fixed. > NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > > W: xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML Fixed. > E: xom unknown-key GPG#c431416d This was just because you didn't have the JPackage GPG on your system. > NO * Vendor tag should not be used Removed. > ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 Done. > NO * use macros appropriately and consistently > install -m 644 build/%{name}-%{version}.jar \ > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar > (cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} && for jar in *-%{version}.jar; do ln -sf ${jar} > `echo $jar| sed "s|-%{version}||g"`; done) I think this is fine. > ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs I think they're fine. > ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-javadoc-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-demo-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm W: xom-demo no-documentation I think this can be ignored. $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/xom-1.0-3jpp.1.noarch.rpm > NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc Fixed. > ?? * package should build on i386 It does for me. I think you'll have to wait to verify until other packages are built. > NO * package should build in mock I can't try until saxon is done, but I'm confident it will work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 23:02:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:02:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208613] Review Request: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142302.l1EN2ETg017501@bugzilla.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: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208613 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-14 18:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > in the new world we were not going to let packages linger in updates-testing > for that long. I guess we could exclude glibc for longer time periods. What about gcc? -- 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 Wed Feb 14 23:04:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:04:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227058] Review Request: gnu-trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142304.l1EN4Zd9017599@bugzilla.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: gnu-trove-1.0.2-4jpp - High performance collections for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227058 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 23:05:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:05:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142305.l1EN5J8Q017662@bugzilla.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: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227125 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-14 18:05 EST ------- I removed the saxon BR and it built fine. Let's assume we don't need it :) Updated spec and SRPM (saxon dep removed): http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/xom-1.0-3jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 23:07:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:07:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142307.l1EN7xaF017849@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 23:09:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:09:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227046] Review Request: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142309.l1EN9Q45017954@bugzilla.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: classpathx-jaxp-1.0-0.beta1.10jpp - Java XML parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227046 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 23:10:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:10:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142310.l1ENAQua018061@bugzilla.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: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 23:13:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:13:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227057] Review Request: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142313.l1ENDThJ018209@bugzilla.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: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227057 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 23:19:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:19:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227041] Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142319.l1ENJ47G018527@bugzilla.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: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227041 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-14 18:19 EST ------- Approved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 23:42:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:42:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227114] Review Request: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142342.l1ENgClq019747@bugzilla.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: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227114 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-14 18:41 EST ------- MUST: X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output W: saxon non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon unversioned-explicit-provides jaxp_transform_impl X - don't put fc7 in changelog entry X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs W: saxon non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:6.5.5-1jpp.1.fc7 0:6.5.5-1jpp.1 W: saxon no-documentation W: saxon dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives W: saxon symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/java/jaxp_transform_impl.jar /etc/alternatives W: saxon-aelfred non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon-aelfred no-documentation W: saxon-demo non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon-demo no-documentation W: saxon-jdom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: saxon-jdom no-documentation W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/expressions.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/patterns.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/xsl-elements.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/dtdgen.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/changes.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/extensions.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/api-guide.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/samples.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/conditions.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/using-xsl.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/instant.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/conformance.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/index.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/limitations.html W: saxon-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/saxon-manual-6.5.5/extensibility.html W: saxon-scripts non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 14 23:58:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 18:58:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702142358.l1ENwbNB020253@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-14 18:58 EST ------- Thanks! Requested CVSSyncNeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 00:23:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:23:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150023.l1F0NEur021307@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |petersen at redhat.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778, 177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 00:39:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:39:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150039.l1F0dKMJ021732@bugzilla.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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-14 19:39 EST ------- Hmmm you seem to have uploaded the wrong srpm... Verify the above changes have been made. Also, please add gcj support while you are at it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 00:47:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:47:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227117] Review Request: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150047.l1F0lV01021992@bugzilla.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: tagsoup-1.0.1-1jpp - A SAX-compliant parser written in Java that parses HTML as it is found in the wild: nasty and brutish https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227117 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-14 19:47 EST ------- Funny... Acording to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaPackagingStatus#preview you own the package so I am asigning the bug back to you. Please build the package on plague and let me know so I can close the bug... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 00:52:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:52:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150052.l1F0qMI6022119@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-14 19:52 EST ------- The configure was not used because cmake is provided and it is likely that all newer KDE related applications switch to cmake and drop the autotools sooner or later. Of course if preferred I can also use configure. About the line end encoding: I'm not sure how I should change the files. I can generate a patch file which would be exactly as big as the mentioned files. Is there a save way to call sed in the spec file? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 00:57:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:57:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227114] Review Request: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150057.l1F0vpbn022236@bugzilla.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: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227114 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-14 19:57 EST ------- New spec and srpm are here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/saxon/ changelog is fixed line-encoding is fixed groups are unchanged because they are correct -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 00:58:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:58:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227114] Review Request: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150058.l1F0wK1v022267@bugzilla.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: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227114 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 01:01:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:01:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227114] Review Request: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150101.l1F11Wfq022393@bugzilla.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: saxon-6.5.3-4jpp - Java XSLT processor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227114 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-14 20:01 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 01:07:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:07:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227032] Review Request: asm-1.5.3-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150107.l1F17HFq022556@bugzilla.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: asm-1.5.3-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227032 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-14 20:07 EST ------- New spec and srpm are here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/asm/ buildroot fixed source locations fixed encoding warnings fixed javadoc attributes fixed license file added and marked %doc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 01:54:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:54:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227122] Review Request: xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp - XML-Java binding tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150154.l1F1sCww023648@bugzilla.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: xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp - XML-Java binding tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227122 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-14 20:54 EST ------- Spec URL: http://fitzsim.org/packages/xmlbeans.spec SRPM URL: http://fitzsim.org/packages/xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp.1.src.rpm Someone should investigate why there are differences between the JPackage tarball and the upstream one. I've decided to include the upstream one and comment out the sections that use the directories that are only present in the JPackage tarball. The extra directories only seem to be used for tests and documentation so there should be no loss of functionality by not including them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 01:54:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:54:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227122] Review Request: xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp - XML-Java binding tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150154.l1F1seiB023735@bugzilla.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: xmlbeans-2.1.0-3jpp - XML-Java binding tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227122 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 02:04:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:04:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150204.l1F24QqP024101@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-14 21:04 EST ------- Fixed spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/xpp3/ Fixed license to BSD-style Added req for java and jpackage-utils Fixed file encoding Fixed doc linking -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 02:10:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:10:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227064] Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150210.l1F2AIgi024502@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227064 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-14 21:10 EST ------- Everything seems to be in ordered. Spec isnt decorated for AOT compilation but this can be done later. APPROVED. Reassigning to pcheung, the package owner for building into rawhide. The bug will be closed once the package reaches mirrors... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 02:26:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:26:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227089] Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150226.l1F2QdUo025155@bugzilla.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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 02:27:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:27:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227063] Review Request: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150227.l1F2RxUV025208@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227063 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-14 21:27 EST ------- Fixed spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/j-c-cli/ fixed buildroot removed vendor/distribution tag removed %section curbed lines > 80 characters added requires on java and jpackage-utils -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 02:29:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:29:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227063] Review Request: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150229.l1F2TLGD025271@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227063 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 03:49:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227063] Review Request: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150349.l1F3nv1Q028389@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-7jpp - Jakarta Commons CLI, a Command Line Interface for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227063 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-14 22:49 EST ------- Looks good. Approved. Final rpmlint ran on mock built packages: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-cli-*rpm W: jakarta-commons-cli non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jakarta-commons-cli non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Just for record keeping, I did the provides and requires on the mock built rpms: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-8jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm ant >= 0:1.6 ant-junit >= 0:1.6 junit jakarta-commons-lang jakarta-commons-logging jpackage-utils >= 0:1.5 java-javadoc rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-8jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm (none)[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-developme_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-cli-javadoc-1.0-8jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm jakarta-commons-cli-javadoc = 0:1.0-8jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-cli-javadoc-1.0-8jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Leaving it assigned to myself as I need to build this in plaque. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 04:28:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:28:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150428.l1F4S5je030635@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-14 23:28 EST ------- rpmlint on binary rpms: W: xpp3 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML +ok W: xpp3-minimal non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML +ok W: xpp3-minimal no-documentation X xpp3-minimal should have the licensing docs rpmlint on source rpm: W: xpp3 non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML + ok One other note, the minimal package is missing requires -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 04:29:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:29:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227044] Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150429.l1F4TmvY030783@bugzilla.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: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227044 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 04:39:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 23:39:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227119] Review Request: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150439.l1F4dXdP031503@bugzilla.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: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227119 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-14 23:39 EST ------- X indicates items needed fixing. MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah Please mention that the password for anon cvs login is : anoncvs Their server is down at the moment, i will check this again next time Shall we mention how we get the doc tar ball as well? * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -n missing X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) %{?dist} missing * license text included in package and marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - looks good, only: W: ws-jaxme non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used * Vendor tag should not be used * Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - %{?dist} is missing from Release: * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) X make sure lines are <= 80 characters line 156, 157 are > 80 char. * specfile written in American English X make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b please use -doc as it's preferred. * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm ws-jaxme = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm antlr hsqldb jakarta-commons-codec jaxp_transform_impl jpackage-utils jpackage-utils junit log4j rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 xalan-j2 xerces-j2 xml-commons-apis xmldb-api xmldb-api-sdk [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-javadoc-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm ws-jaxme-javadoc = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-javadoc-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm jpackage-utils jpackage-utils rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-manual-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm ws-jaxme-manual = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-manual-0.5.1-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs rpmlint on mock built rpms: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-* W: ws-jaxme non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: ws-jaxme incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1 W: ws-jaxme non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock built in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 05:31:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:31:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150531.l1F5VHuk001303@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-15 00:31 EST ------- Thanks for Changing Summary and making rpmlint happy :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 05:41:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:41:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150541.l1F5f81T001755@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-15 00:41 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 02a3c8b947d3f2888bc2455f7405f7c1 Acme-Damn-0.03.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/1compile....ok t/2damn.......ok t/3aliases....ok t/4name.......ok t/5bad........ok All tests successful. Files=5, Tests=75, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.21 cusr + 0.05 csys = 0.26 CPU) +Provides: Damn.so perl(Acme::Damn) = 0.03 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 05:45:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:45:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150545.l1F5jHs3001996@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-15 00:45 EST ------- Umm... where? Would you bump release to -3 and re-upload? At least I viewed your spec file http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/ntfs-config.spec and "install" does not keep timestamps (still written as install -Dm 644, not install -p -Dm 644) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 06:12:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:12:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228212] Review Request: perl-Proc-Daemon - Run Perl program as a daemon process In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150612.l1F6C5F3003033@bugzilla.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-Proc-Daemon - Run Perl program as a daemon process https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228212 Fedora at FamilleCollet.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com 2007-02-15 01:12 EST ------- Thanks for the review... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 06:37:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:37:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226218] Merge Review: openssh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150637.l1F6bHOl004071@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: openssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226218 mastahnke at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mastahnke at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-15 01:37 EST ------- Template I am using for review -- thanks KevinFenzi OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. XX - Sources match upstream md5sum --sources do not match. Explanation is provided and acceptable, IMO. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. XX Package has correct buildroot -- package has incorrect build root. See FESCO meeting minutes from this week or last. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. XX - Package has no duplicate files in %files. -- /etc/ssh is provided by openssh-server and openssh-clients OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. XX (see below) - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version XX- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Several other bugs exists, however most appear to be RFEs for items not seen in upstream, so I don't consider them problems for merge. (and wow some of those RFEs don't look fun) Most of the rpmlint output makes perfect sense to me, but I am not all-authoratative. My biggest concern is no documentation for openssh-askpass rpmlint output for binary packagees openssh-4.5p1-2.i386.rpm E: openssh setuid-binary /usr/libexec/openssh/ssh-keysign root 04755 E: openssh non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/openssh/ssh-keysign 04755 E: openssh non-readable /etc/ssh/moduli 0600 openssh-askpass-4.5p1-2.i386.rpm W: openssh-askpass conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/gnome-ssh-askpass.csh W: openssh-askpass conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/gnome-ssh-askpass.sh W: openssh-askpass no-documentation E: openssh-askpass executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/gnome-ssh-askpass.sh E: openssh-askpass executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/gnome-ssh-askpass.sh 0755 E: openssh-askpass executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/gnome-ssh-askpass.csh E: openssh-askpass executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/gnome-ssh-askpass.csh 0755 openssh-clients-4.5p1-2.i386.rpm E: openssh-clients setgid-binary /usr/bin/ssh-agent nobody 02755 E: openssh-clients non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/ssh-agent 02755 openssh-debuginfo-4.5p1-2.i386.rpm openssh-server-4.5p1-2.i386.rpm E: openssh-server non-standard-dir-perm /var/empty/sshd 0711 E: openssh-server non-readable /etc/ssh/sshd_config 0600 W: openssh-server non-standard-dir-in-var empty W: openssh-server dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm W: openssh-server service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/sshd W: openssh-server incoherent-init-script-name sshd Please fix space/tab issue Perms on openssh-nukeacss.sh could also probably be changed. rpmlint openssh-4.5p1-2.src.rpm W: openssh strange-permission openssh-nukeacss.sh 0775 W: openssh unversioned-explicit-obsoletes openssh-askpass-gnome W: openssh unversioned-explicit-provides openssh-askpass-gnome W: openssh mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 239) Note: I am not a member of FedoraBugs yet (still waiting) so I can't claim the ticket and pass it on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 06:50:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:50:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228782] Review Request: tcl-html - HTML documentation for Tcl/Tk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150650.l1F6ovEK004787@bugzilla.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: tcl-html - HTML documentation for Tcl/Tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228782 ------- Additional Comments From sander at hoentjen.eu 2007-02-15 01:50 EST ------- (In reply to comment #0) > Similarly, the initial release number for this package must be greater than the last release number for the current tcl-html subpackage in order for upgrades to work. Meaning either the tcl package drops Epoch (which i prefer) or this package also adds the Epoch, if I am not mistaken. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 06:56:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150656.l1F6upn0005171@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-15 01:56 EST ------- Thanks. Here comes (UN)official review Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS. + source files match upstream. 39d9f6bf83362d45ed5d8d5f7831d153 TibetanMachineUnicodeFont.zip + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + COPYING included in %doc. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + fonts scriptlets are used. + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 07:08:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:08:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150708.l1F78olI005945@bugzilla.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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-15 02:08 EST ------- Thanks for the review! I will close the review ticket as soon as all branches requested from "CVSSyncNeeded" are granted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 07:21:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:21:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150721.l1F7LYZ3006577@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-15 02:21 EST ------- tibetan-machine-uni-fonts seems a bit awkward, how about naming the package "fonts-tibetan" in line with other fonts packages? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 07:33:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:33:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150733.l1F7XZZx007143@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-15 02:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > The configure was not used because cmake is provided and it is likely that all > newer KDE related applications switch to cmake and drop the autotools sooner > or later. Of course if preferred I can also use configure. Then its ok. No problem. > > About the line end encoding: I'm not sure how I should change the files. I can > generate a patch file which would be exactly as big as the mentioned files. Is > there a save way to call sed in the spec file? its simple to call sed in spec. Have you checked link given comment #1? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 07:36:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:36:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150736.l1F7ad30007218@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-15 02:36 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148098) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148098&action=view) Use this SPEC Bump the release. Add ChangeLog in SPEC. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 08:36:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:36:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226354] Merge Review: radvd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150836.l1F8arSR009640@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: radvd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226354 mbacovsk at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(jima at beer.tclug.or | |g) ------- Additional Comments From mbacovsk at redhat.com 2007-02-15 03:36 EST ------- I hope I fixed all issues stated above. I really appreciated jima's detailed guidelines. Thanks a lot Jima. Current version is radvd-1.0-3.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 08:58:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:58:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228479] Review Request: hunspell-hr - Croatian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150858.l1F8whhS011177@bugzilla.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: hunspell-hr - Croatian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228479 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 03:58 EST ------- 27627 (hunspell-hr): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 08:59:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:59:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228501] Review Request: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150859.l1F8xst8011276@bugzilla.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: hunspell-th - Thai hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228501 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 03:59 EST ------- 27628 (hunspell-th): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 09:01:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:01:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150901.l1F91nm2011459@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-15 04:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > W: tmda spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/tmda-1.1.9/contrib/printdbm > W: tmda doc-file-dependency > E: tmda-ofmipd use-tmp-in-%pre > W: tmda-ofmipd service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/tofmipd > W: tmda-ofmipd no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/tofmipd I have fixed these problems. > ------------------------------------- > E: tmda zero-length /usr/share/doc/tmda-1.1.9/contrib/dot-tmda/lists/blacklist > ------------------------------------- > - How do empty documents make sense? Actually, in this case they do. The dot-tmda directory is made for a user to cp -r .../dot-tmda to ~/.tmda and then they have a fully setup boilerplate to use TMDA. The blacklist & confirmed list are initially blank, and the crypt_key must be customized. > * userdel, groupdel... > ------------------------------------- > /usr/sbin/userdel ofmipd >/dev/null 2>&1 || : > /usr/sbin/groupdel ofmipd >/dev/null 2>&1 || : > ------------------------------------- > - Still under discussion, however, as far as I know > current Fedora policy is that "some dangerous commands > like userdel or so should not automatically done and > should executed by sysadmin with care". I switched this to fedora-usermgmt style. I believe this takes a little of the danger out of the process anyway. In any case, whatever Fedora policy is chosen I will adhere to. Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/tmda.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/tmda-1.1.10-1.fc6.src.rpm * Thu Feb 15 2007 Bernard Johnson 1.1.10-1 - version 1.1.10 - substitute RPM_BUILD_ROOT for %%{buildroot} macro - preserve file timestamps - change tofmipd user to /etc home directory - switch to fedora-usermgmt user management - add Require(post,preun) of /sbin/chkconfig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 09:09:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:09:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150909.l1F99pNO012552@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: flac https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-15 04:09 EST ------- I don't think we need to care about a historical version from 3rd party repo. The CVS log show that flac was included into Fedora in FC-2 or FC-3 in September 2004, so I would kill the "Obsolete" entirely. Also I don't think we support upgrades from such old versions. But all problems are fixed, so package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 09:17:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:17:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150917.l1F9HZCd013164@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-15 04:17 EST ------- Well, it seems that no one disagrees your taking over gdome2 maintainership, so please do so. * You have to fill up http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded to have owners.list fixed by cvsadmin. * After cvsadmin changes owners.list, rebuild gdome2 on FE-devel again (with release number incremented) * And you have to remove gdome from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages After that I will restart to review ntop again. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 09:52:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:52:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228296] Review Request: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702150952.l1F9qVr7015684@bugzilla.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: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228296 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-15 04:52 EST ------- Oh, I get it, you mean people still using a single %_sourcedir... hmmm... this is no longer relevant with mach/mock, and it makes the build simpler if you don't have to change the file names when installing them... do you *really* want me to change the file names? As for the license, we re-license the binary package under the GPL since it's linked to a GPL library. We aren't required to add something like "used to be LGPL", and I doubt a single end-user will actually care about the change, so as long as we comply with the terms and make the info available somewhere (in the source rpm), I would think it's fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 10:46:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:46:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151046.l1FAkVMm020050@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-15 05:46 EST ------- The new srpm is here: http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~p1woro/fedorarpms/speedcrunch-0.7-beta2.2.src.rpm I replaced the old spec, just take the link from above. About the line encoding: yes, I read the comment but wasn't unsure if to call the argument from the spec or if I should provide a patch. So I just included the line like in your attached spec (and changed the tab-space stuff and the version number, etc). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 10:52:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:52:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151052.l1FAqVlX020460@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-15 05:52 EST ------- emacs-nxml-mode-0.20041004-5.fc7 built. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 10:58:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:58:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151058.l1FAwtZ9020896@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-15 05:58 EST ------- -15 has: - a disttag - autoconf213 info file. I've done it a little bit different, so that the File: tag inside info is correct. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 11:27:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:27:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151127.l1FBRafJ023566@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-15 06:27 EST ------- timestamps already added to "install -p -Dm 644" clean your cache and retry please. i'll bump it to -3 -;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 11:37:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:37:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151137.l1FBb3VO024387@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-15 06:37 EST ------- - I don't use autoconf's config.sub/guess as they require help2man. This is in extras, but our buildsystem doesn't pull in packages from there atm. help2man is only required if you modified a dependency of a manual page, which is not the case here. autoconf-2.61-4.fc7 has the following changes: - add disttag - replace tabs with spaces - fix buildroot - use Requires(post), Requires(preun) - use make install DESTDIR=.... - drop perl requirement as it gets pulled it automatically -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 12:55:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:55:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 214967] Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151255.l1FCt73x027738@bugzilla.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: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967 ------- Additional Comments From dbateman at free.fr 2007-02-15 07:54 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148107) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148107&action=view) Clarification of ARPACK license by author -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 12:57:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 07:57:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 214967] Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151257.l1FCvc5A027943@bugzilla.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: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967 ------- Additional Comments From dbateman at free.fr 2007-02-15 07:57 EST ------- (From update of attachment 148107) I phoned Danny Sorensen to try and get clarification for this. He stated that it was the lawyers at RICE that required him to have the license, and so he hesitated to change the license due to the need to involve the RICE lawyers in the loop. He was however willing to clarify the statement Written notification is provided to the developers of intent to use this software. Also, we ask that use of ARPACK is properly cited in any resulting publications or software documentation. and how it applies to Fedora. The clarification is in the attached e-mail above from Danny. Essentially, he is not asking that Fedora or their users inform him of the use of ARPACK. However, he is requesting that the "eigs" function that uses ARPACK cites it. This is in fact the case, however, I take this statement a bit further in meaning that code that links to ARPACK muct mention ARPACK in its documentation Is this an acceptable clarification? If not what is needed to further clarify this point? Regards David -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 13:29:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:29:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 214967] Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151329.l1FDTKuY029217@bugzilla.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: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 13:55:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:55:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151355.l1FDtGIw030604@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From mgarski at post.pl 2007-02-15 08:55 EST ------- In FE I have found: charis-fonts, gentium-fonts, artwiz-aleczapka-fonts and many others, instead there are only 3 fonts-* packages so I thought naming this package tibetan-machine-uni-fonts would be ok, but of course I could rename it. I also have next problem, it's called ;) Jomolhari Font (http://www.thdl.org/tools/fonts/tibfonts.php?l=uva200607171100) which I would also want to put it in FE, but I don't known should I include this font in fonts-tibetan (beside that fonts could display not only Tibetan but also Dzongkha and Ladakhi) package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 14:00:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:00:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151400.l1FE0rkV030990@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-15 09:00 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > BAD rpmlint is not silent. > > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/cedit.menu > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/edit.indent.rc > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/edit.spell.rc > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/extfs/extfs.ini > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/extfs/sfs.ini > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.charsets > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.ext > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.lib > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/mc.menu > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mc/syntax/Syntax > at least mc.ext, mc.menu should be "noreplace", maybe all Ok all of them are now noreplace except the mc.charsets and mc.lib -> I left those as config only. It's unlikely that anyone wants to change it. > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/mc.csh > W: mc conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/mc.sh I removed the config flag from these. > E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc-wrapper.sh > E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc-wrapper.csh It's ok, because they are called by mc.sh and mc.csh via source. > E: mc executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/mc.sh > E: mc executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/mc.sh 0755 > E: mc non-executable-script /etc/mc/edit.spell.rc 0644 > E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc.sh > E: mc script-without-shebang /usr/share/mc/bin/mc.csh > > E: mc non-standard-uid /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver vcsa > E: mc setuid-binary /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver vcsa 04711 > E: mc non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver 04711 > E: mc non-standard-executable-perm /usr/libexec/mc/cons.saver 04711 The above is required to save console contents. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 14:34:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:34:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228492] Review Request: hunspell-nn - Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151434.l1FEYvaW001050@bugzilla.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: hunspell-nn - Nynorsk hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228492 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 09:34 EST ------- 27640 (hunspell-nn): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 14:35:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:35:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228496] Review Request: hunspell-ru - Russian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151435.l1FEZuL1001162@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ru - Russian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228496 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 09:35 EST ------- 27642 (hunspell-ru): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 14:43:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:43:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228495] Review Request: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151443.l1FEhkJt001690@bugzilla.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: hunspell-pt - Portuguese hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228495 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 09:43 EST ------- 27643 (hunspell-pt): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 14:48:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:48:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 214967] Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151448.l1FEm7BU001895@bugzilla.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: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-15 09:47 EST ------- Thanks David for contacting the author over phone! In my understanding this is still an advertizing style clause. I'm escalating this to FE-Legal and asked spot about this, who is the license wizzard around here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 14:49:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:49:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228499] Review Request: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151449.l1FEn61D001985@bugzilla.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: hunspell-sl - Slovenian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228499 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 09:48 EST ------- 27644 (hunspell-sl): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 14:50:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:50:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228497] Review Request: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151450.l1FEocip002051@bugzilla.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: hunspell-sk - Slovak hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228497 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 09:50 EST ------- 27645 (hunspell-sk): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 14:52:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:52:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228500] Review Request: hunspell-sv - Swedish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151452.l1FEqHdI002181@bugzilla.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: hunspell-sv - Swedish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228500 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 09:52 EST ------- 27646 (hunspell-sv): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 14:55:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151455.l1FEtdU5002573@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-15 09:55 EST ------- ??? Still http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/ntfs-config.spec says "install -Dm 644" and -3 srpm doesn't seem to be available from http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/ ... (Please bump release tag every time you change/fix spec/srpm. Changing spec/srpm without changing release number causes confusion on people who are watching the package) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 14:58:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:58:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228503] Review Request: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151458.l1FEwuw8002816@bugzilla.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: hunspell-zu - Zulu hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228503 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 09:58 EST ------- 27647 (hunspell-zu): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 15:01:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:01:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151501.l1FF163O003020@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-15 10:00 EST ------- Thanks for your comments. All problems should be fixed in bzip2-1.0.4-5.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 15:08:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:08:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228782] Review Request: tcl-html - HTML documentation for Tcl/Tk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151508.l1FF8Z6M004109@bugzilla.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: tcl-html - HTML documentation for Tcl/Tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228782 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-15 10:08 EST ------- related #226479 Is it really necessary to split it into 2 packages? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 15:09:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:09:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151509.l1FF9YrZ004249@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-15 10:09 EST ------- > E: tcl invalid-soname /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so libtcl8.4.so It must stay for backward compatibility. > Use %{_libdir} instead of %{_prefix}/%{_lib} Please see if it's everything allright. > html Patch decline to generate useless html source. I think it's better than spend time with generating. I don't want split tcl into two packages, maybe in new version. It's small source for html. > Source does not match upstream. Could you give me http of your source? Because I check it and they are the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 15:10:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:10:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228475] Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151510.l1FFALOH004388@bugzilla.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: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228475 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|lxtnow at gmail.com |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-15 10:10 EST ------- taking over the review in order to finish with all the set. GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream , sha1sum 1591bf44789a78fda5d84c5820fecb87e19efb27 fr_FR-1990.zip - the package builds in mock for devel/x86_64, generates a noarch (which is consistent with the fact that basically it includes only 3 text files) - the license GPL stated in the tag is the same as the web site says and is included in the package - there are only 2 files (word lists) + a short doc with instructions and license clearance, so no need for -doc and no .la, .pc, static files - no missing BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of other files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - rpmlint output is silent - code, not content - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 15:28:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:28:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151528.l1FFSns9006693@bugzilla.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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 15:37:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227068] Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151537.l1FFb5E7008050@bugzilla.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: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227068 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 15:41:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:41:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208613] Review Request: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151541.l1FFfi6d008904@bugzilla.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: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208613 ------- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat.com 2007-02-15 10:41 EST ------- Wrt concerns: 1) yes, I guess it would be possible if we come up with some simple rules, e.g. such builds would be possible only if there weren't any changes checked in on the branch other than in libjava/ since the last gcc rpm built by myself and it used a release tag with dot inside (the former because things being checked there means a new gcc from me is in the works, the latter e.g. to not get out of sync e.g. with rawhide gcc) 3) even with separate libgcj the BuildRequires of gcc couldn't be trimmed down, as building untested gcj/jc1 is not an option - even with separate libgcj gcc build would need to build libgcj itself and run tests against it, only it wouldn't be installed by gcc subpackages. -- 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 Feb 15 15:41:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:41:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151541.l1FFfoia008946@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From dzrudy at gmail.com 2007-02-15 10:41 EST ------- Hi again :) I have updated my xorg.conf with our settings and I'm still getting that libc error when wacom gets loaded. Orginally I didn't have Modules section in my xorg.conf but regardless of whether I add it or not it still gives the error. Unfortunetely, I didn't get a chance to test it with building straight from the upstream source and I'll do it as soon as I get back hom form work :) Also I couldn't reuild the new src.rpom that you posted because it hives rpath errors whe doung it as a user or other errors when rebuildign as root. I'll attach the rebuild log for both cases. Over the weekend I'll have more time and I will provide more constructive feedback and hopefully we'll get it working :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 15:43:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:43:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151543.l1FFhA2I009216@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 dzrudy at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147403|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From dzrudy at gmail.com 2007-02-15 10:43 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148111) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148111&action=view) rpmbuild output as user -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 15:44:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151544.l1FFi0DS009322@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From dzrudy at gmail.com 2007-02-15 10:43 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148112) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148112&action=view) rpmbuild as root -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 15:56:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:56:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151556.l1FFuNe5010726@bugzilla.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: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |keiths at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-15 10:56 EST ------- Keith: have you heard of com.sun.jdi? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:08:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:08:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228493] Review Request: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151608.l1FG8hVS013179@bugzilla.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: hunspell-pl - Polish hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228493 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 11:08 EST ------- 27654 (hunspell-pl): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:12:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:12:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227106] Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151612.l1FGCkOO013930@bugzilla.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: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227106 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:17:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:17:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151617.l1FGHGT4014581@bugzilla.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: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227125 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:18:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:18:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227032] Review Request: asm-1.5.3-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151618.l1FGIBhU014653@bugzilla.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: asm-1.5.3-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227032 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:23:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:23:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151623.l1FGNnqN015388@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-15 11:23 EST ------- hmmzzz apparently the 64 bit does have a /usr/lib dir since make install creates this dir automaticly and the rpmbuild is located in /usr/lib. The good news is that the configuring, the build and the make install to the /var/tmp dir seems to work ok. However the files wich are installed in the rpm have to be manually entered in the spec file in the %files section. Since the rpmbuild from the src package on the 64 bit log indicates the should be used two different lib locations, one /usr/lib64 for xorg and one /usr/lib for the others I have added a %define to make this happen http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-7.6.1.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:28:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:28:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228489] Review Request: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151628.l1FGSeAP016097@bugzilla.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: hunspell-nb - Bokmaal hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228489 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 11:28 EST ------- 27656 (hunspell-nb): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:33:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:33:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228484] Review Request: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151633.l1FGXFWP016920@bugzilla.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: hunspell-lt - Lithuanian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228484 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 11:33 EST ------- 27658 (hunspell-lt): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:33:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:33:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227059] Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151633.l1FGXUMK017024@bugzilla.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: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227059 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |227075, 227113 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-15 11:33 EST ------- Almost there: Xs are the only things that need doing MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} X source and patches verified * md5sums match . it would be nice to have some comments regarding why the patches are necessary and/or what they do * skim the summary and description fine * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used properly X license text included in package and marked with %doc . there's no license text included in the zip * packages meet FHS X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing -> let's make this Development/Tools just for fun X changelog is fine except for %{?dist} in your entry - remove that * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 . can't build until jtidy and rhino are finished * BuildRequires are proper * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * -doc sub-package is fine * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package? * macros used appropriately and consistently * no %makeinstall * no locale data * cp -p used * no Requires(pre,post) * package is not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs . can't do until jtidy and rhino done X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . can't do until jtidy and rhino done SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc . nope X package should build on i386 . can't do until jtidy and rhino done X package should build in mock . can't do until jtidy and rhino done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:29:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:29:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228490] Review Request: hunspell-nl - Dutch hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151629.l1FGTbiK016332@bugzilla.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: hunspell-nl - Dutch hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228490 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-15 11:29 EST ------- 27657 (hunspell-nl): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:33:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:33:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227113] Review Request: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151633.l1FGXfhh017093@bugzilla.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: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227113 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |227059 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:33:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:33:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151633.l1FGXqwh017138@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |227059 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:46:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:46:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225575] Review Request: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151646.l1FGk2FU018982@bugzilla.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: roundcubemail - Round Cube Webmail is a browser-based multilingual IMAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225575 ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-15 11:46 EST ------- New SRPM and spec, sans GPL-incompatible code. Builds fine, runs fine. Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/roundcubemail/roundcubemail.1.spec SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/extras/roundcubemail/roundcubemail-0.1-beta2.2.1.src.rpm However: [limb at forge SPECS]$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/noarch/roundcubemail-0.1-beta2.2.1.noarch.rpm W: roundcubemail dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/roundcubemail/temp ../../../var/tmp The relative symbolic link points nowhere. But once installed, this link is fine. Am I missing something obvious? I'm also listing the whole thing in FILES and listing some within that indidually so set permissions, as some things in the tarball are set executable for absolutely no reason. Any problem with this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:48:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:48:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151648.l1FGmj9x019403@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-15 11:48 EST ------- oeps forgot the link to the new src package: http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-0.7.4_4-3.9.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 16:53:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:53:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151653.l1FGr8HT019945@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-15 11:53 EST ------- New updated files: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/ntfs-config.spec http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/ntfs-config-0.5.4-3.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:02:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:02:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227034] Review Request: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151702.l1FH22X2021009@bugzilla.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: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227034 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-15 12:01 EST ------- Updated SRPM and spec (with patch added for class-path-in-manifest): http://overholt.ca/fedora/asm2-2.1-2jpp.1.src.rpm http://overholt.ca/fedora/asm2.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:07:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:07:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225827] Merge Review: gnome-nettool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151707.l1FH7qXe021813@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-nettool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225827 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-15 12:07 EST ------- No blockers here, so approved ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:15:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:15:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151715.l1FHFh3n022626@bugzilla.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: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:20:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:20:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227034] Review Request: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151720.l1FHKW0H022976@bugzilla.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: asm2-2.1-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227034 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-15 12:20 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:24:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227119] Review Request: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151724.l1FHO8Wn023189@bugzilla.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: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227119 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-15 12:23 EST ------- Fixed files are in: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/ws-jaxme/ Fixed the source location Fixed the lines > 80 chars %{?dist} added -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:24:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227059] Review Request: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151724.l1FHOPfc023217@bugzilla.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: httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp - Automated web site testing toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227059 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-15 12:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Almost there: Xs are the only things that need doing > > MUST: > * package is named appropriately > * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this > * license field matches the actual license. > * license is open source-compatible. > * specfile name matches %{name} > X source and patches verified > * md5sums match > . it would be nice to have some comments regarding why the patches are comments added > necessary and/or what they do > * skim the summary and description fine > * correct buildroot > * %{?dist} used properly > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > there's no license text included in the zip > * packages meet FHS > X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing > > -> let's make this Development/Tools just for fun > Done > X changelog is fine except for %{?dist} in your entry - remove that Done > * Packager tag not used > * Vendor tag not used > * Distribution tag not used > * use License and not Copyright > * Summary tag does not end in a period > * no PreReq > * specfile is legible > X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > . can't build until jtidy and rhino are finished > * BuildRequires are proper > * summary should be a short and concise description of the package > * description expands upon summary > * make sure lines are <= 80 characters > * specfile written in American English > * -doc sub-package is fine > * no libraries > * no rpath > * no config files > * not a GUI app > * no -devel sub-package? > * macros used appropriately and consistently > * no %makeinstall > * no locale data > * cp -p used > * no Requires(pre,post) > * package is not relocatable > * package contains code > * package owns all directories and files > * no %files duplicates > * file permissions okay; %defattrs present > * %clean present > * %doc files do not affect runtime > * not a web app will do the rest when jtidy and rhino are ready. > X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > . can't do until jtidy and rhino done > X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > . can't do until jtidy and rhino done > > SHOULD: > X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > . nope > X package should build on i386 > . can't do until jtidy and rhino done > X package should build in mock > . can't do until jtidy and rhino done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:28:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:28:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151728.l1FHS07o023593@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From dzrudy at gmail.com 2007-02-15 12:27 EST ------- I just tried the new package and I'm still getting rpath errors. I have added --diable-rpath to ./configure in the spec fiel but still no go :-( Here is output of rpmbuild --rebuild linuxwacom-0.7.4_4-3.9.1.src.rpm | grep -i rpath: /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -Wall -g -O2 -D__amd64__ -o libwacomxi.la -rpath /usr/lib/TkXInput -no-undefined wacomxi.lo -L/usr/lib64 -lX11 -lXi /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -Wall -pedantic -g -O2 -D__amd64__ -o libwacomcfg.la -rpath /usr/lib -no-undefined -version-info 0:1:0 wacomcfg.lo -L/usr/lib64 -lX11 -lXi gcc -Wall -pedantic -g -O2 -D__amd64__ -o .libs/xsetwacom xsetwacom.o ./.libs/libwacomcfg.so -L/usr/lib64 -lX11 -lXi -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/lib -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:34:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:34:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227119] Review Request: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151734.l1FHYbFm024549@bugzilla.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: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227119 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-15 12:34 EST ------- The -manual package was not renamed to doc because jpackage uses -manual and we need to stay as close to them as possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:40:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:40:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151740.l1FHetHL025238@bugzilla.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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-15 12:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > > Great. I think there may be a minor bug in %changelog because rpmlint now > > generates the following warning when run on > > dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1.i386.rpm: > > W: dom2-core-tests incoherent-version-in-changelog > > 1:0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1.fc7 1:0.0.1-0.1.20040405.1jpp.1 > > Could you have a look at this? > I think you might have tried to rebuild the srpm without a rpmbuild --define > "%dist .fc7" which is why it complained. > Sorry about that, you are right. But there is still a warning in one of the binary rpms: W: dom2-core-tests no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Everything else looks a-okay to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:51:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:51:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151751.l1FHpnnm026296@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-15 12:51 EST ------- Behdad, did you want to make any changes here ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:52:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:52:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151752.l1FHqehK026390@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-15 12:52 EST ------- http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/xpp3/ Fixed requirements -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 17:58:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:58:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227069] Review Request: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151758.l1FHwOen026701@bugzilla.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: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227069 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-15 12:58 EST ------- Updated jaxen 1.1 for bootstrapping: http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen-bootstrap.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 18:45:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:45:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228296] Review Request: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151845.l1FIjHae031049@bugzilla.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: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228296 ville.skytta at iki.fi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-15 13:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > do you *really* want me to change the file names? Yes. > We aren't required to add something like "used to be > LGPL", and I doubt a single end-user will actually care about the change, Shrug, even if not required, if it's worth it to spend much more time explaining why not add a user visible file noting why the license is changed than adding the file would have taken, and the possible questions about the change will flow your way as the maintainer later on too, I guess I shouldn't care. It's not only about end users, packagers of apps requiring this package will have to notice the change and take it into account in their packages as well. Conditionally approved with the assumption that the source filenames get a %{name}-* or something like that prefix before the first build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 18:46:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:46:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151846.l1FIkOQs031194@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 Matt_Domsch at dell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From Matt_Domsch at dell.com 2007-02-15 13:46 EST ------- Looks good, thanks for making those changes. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 18:47:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:47:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151847.l1FIl6XA031298@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-15 13:47 EST ------- My pleasure. Maybe this bug was meant to be closed now? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 18:48:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:48:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226354] Merge Review: radvd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151848.l1FIm8o9031393@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: radvd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226354 jima at beer.tclug.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED CC| |jima at beer.tclug.org Flag|needinfo?(jima at beer.tclug.or|fedora-review+ |g), fedora-review- | ------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2007-02-15 13:48 EST ------- Sorry that took so long, I had to synch the latest devel tree to test the build against. My findings are that the following rpmlint messages remain: E: radvd non-standard-uid /var/run/radvd radvd E: radvd non-standard-gid /var/run/radvd radvd W: radvd dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel which, as said above, are acceptable. Thanks for the cooperation; radvd is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 18:55:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 13:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227042] Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151855.l1FItd7X031912@bugzilla.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: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:04:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:04:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151904.l1FJ43bM032570@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-15 14:04 EST ------- I've run out of time for going through the review checklist today, so here for the time being are my thoughts on the rpmlint output: $ rpmlint sendmail-8.14.0-1.src.rpm W: sendmail summary-ended-with-dot A widely used Mail Transport Agent (MTA). => easy fix, remove dot W: sendmail invalid-license Sendmail => whilst rpmlint doesn't include the Sendmail license in its list of approved => licenses, the FSF includes sendmail in its directory of free software => (http://directory.fsf.org/sendmail.html) so this is OK W: sendmail no-url-tag => easy fix, add URL tag W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides smtpdaemon => normal for virtual provides, ignorable W: sendmail prereq-use /usr/sbin/alternatives => use of fine-grained dependencies is normally preferred, but in this case == the requirement is needed for a triggerpostun clause (as well as the post => and postun scripts) and as far as I know there is no way of specifying => fine-grained dependencies for trigger scripts, so this is OK W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_sbindir}/sendmail W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/mailq W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/newaliases W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_bindir}/rmail W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man1/mailq.1.gz W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man1/newaliases.1.gz W: sendmail unversioned-explicit-provides %{_mandir}/man5/aliases.5.gz => all OK as these files are provided in "alternatives" format W: sendmail prereq-use chkconfig >= 1.3 => OK, also needed for a trigger script W: sendmail prereq-use /usr/sbin/useradd /bin/mktemp fileutils gawk sed sh-utils => these should be replaced with the appropriate Requires tags for each => scriptlet; "fileutils" should probably be "coreutils" these days W: sendmail prereq-use fsl >= 1.2.0 => simple "Requires" should do? W: sendmail prereq-use openssl => not needed since rpm's auto-dependency finder picks up the library dep W: sendmail prereq-use /usr/sbin/saslauthd, openssl => "Requires: /usr/sbin/saslauthd" is sufficient W: sendmail prereq-use openldap, openssl => not needed W: sendmail prereq-use mysql => not needed E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail => legitimate install of /usr/lib/sendmail for backward script compatibility E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/libmilter.a => false positive, the %install script is removing the library incorrectly => installed there by the upstream build script E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail E: sendmail hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail => legitimate install of /usr/lib/sendmail for backward script compatibility W: sendmail macro-in-%changelog preun W: sendmail macro-in-%changelog triggerpostun W: sendmail macro-in-%changelog post => easy fix, escape the macros in the changelog W: sendmail mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 239) => easy fix, expand the tabs => the here document for /etc/mail/access could be split off into a separate => source file and retain its tabs $ rpmlint sendmail-8.14.0-1.x86_64.rpm W: sendmail summary-ended-with-dot A widely used Mail Transport Agent (MTA). W: sendmail invalid-license Sendmail W: sendmail no-url-tag => already covered E: sendmail only-non-binary-in-usr-lib => rpmlint confused by a symlink to a binary elsewhere W: sendmail conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail E: sendmail executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail => initscript shouldn't be a conffile in the first place. I would argue that => any customizations should be possible by changing things in => /etc/sysconfig/sendmail. Failing that, use %config(noreplace) E: sendmail file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/lib64/sasl2/Sendmail.conf W: sendmail conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/lib64/sasl2/Sendmail.conf => This is where cyrus-sasl puts things, so not much choice about this E: sendmail zero-length /etc/mail/mailertable E: sendmail zero-length /etc/mail/domaintable E: sendmail zero-length /etc/mail/virtusertable => these files intentionally left blank, though perhaps comment lines could => be put in them, which would shut rpmlint up E: sendmail non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/makemap 0555 E: sendmail non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/smrsh 0555 => should be installed 0755 for debuginfo extraction anyway E: sendmail non-standard-gid /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail smmsp E: sendmail setgid-binary /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail smmsp 02755 E: sendmail non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail 02755 E: sendmail non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/mqueue 0700 E: sendmail non-standard-uid /var/spool/clientmqueue smmsp E: sendmail non-standard-gid /var/spool/clientmqueue smmsp E: sendmail non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/clientmqueue 0770 => non-standard but correct W: sendmail dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/newaliases.sendmail ../../usr/sbin/sendmail W: sendmail dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail ../sbin/sendmail W: sendmail dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/mailq.sendmail ../../usr/sbin/sendmail W: sendmail dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/purgestat ../../usr/sbin/sendmail W: sendmail dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/hoststat ../../usr/sbin/sendmail => not dangling after alternatives in run in %post E: sendmail zero-length /var/log/mail/statistics => OK W: sendmail log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/mail => this directory contains only the statistics file, which doesn't need => rotating W: sendmail dangerous-command-in-%post cp => %post script is well-tested W: sendmail service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail => listens only on localhost out of the box, so OK E: sendmail incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail sm-client E: sendmail incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/sendmail sm-client => two daemons running, both can't be coherent at the same time $ rpmlint sendmail-cf-8.14.0-1.x86_64.rpm W: sendmail-cf summary-ended-with-dot The files needed to reconfigure Sendmail. W: sendmail-cf invalid-license Sendmail W: sendmail-cf no-url-tag => already covered W: sendmail-cf no-documentation => perhaps label /usr/share/sendmail-cf/README as %doc ? => (and perhaps don't bother including /usr/share/sendmail-cf/cf/README at => all?) E: sendmail-cf non-executable-script /usr/share/sendmail-cf/sh/makeinfo.sh 0644 => the m4 snippet that uses this doesn't need it to be executable $ rpmlint sendmail-debuginfo-8.14.0-1.x86_64.rpm W: sendmail-debuginfo invalid-license Sendmail W: sendmail-debuginfo no-url-tag => already covered $ rpmlint sendmail-devel-8.14.0-1.x86_64.rpm W: sendmail-devel summary-ended-with-dot Extra development include files and development files. W: sendmail-devel invalid-license Sendmail W: sendmail-devel no-url-tag => already covered W: sendmail-devel no-documentation => how about: => %doc libmilter/docs/* $ rpmlint sendmail-doc-8.14.0-1.x86_64.rpm W: sendmail-doc summary-ended-with-dot Documentation about the Sendmail Mail Transport Agent program. W: sendmail-doc invalid-license Sendmail W: sendmail-doc no-url-tag => already covered -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:05:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:05:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151905.l1FJ53JC032652@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-15 14:05 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148135) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148135&action=view) Patch addressing most rpmlint issues worth fixing -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:06:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:06:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151906.l1FJ63dJ032744@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-15 14:06 EST ------- Well, check the following... http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/zhcon.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/zhcon-0.2.6-2.1.src.rpm http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/LOGS/MOCK-zhcon.log Everyone, do these work? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:10:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:10:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227119] Review Request: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151910.l1FJA9to000555@bugzilla.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: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227119 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-15 14:10 EST ------- Great! APPROVED. rpmlint on mock built rpms: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-* W: ws-jaxme non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: ws-jaxme non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java final provides and requires: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm antlr hsqldb jakarta-commons-codec jaxp_transform_impl jpackage-utils jpackage-utils junit log4j rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 xalan-j2 xerces-j2 xml-commons-apis xmldb-api xmldb-api-sdk [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm ws-jaxme = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-javadoc-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm jpackage-utils jpackage-utils rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-javadoc-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm ws-jaxme-javadoc = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-manual-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/ws-jaxme-manual-0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm ws-jaxme-manual = 0:0.5.1-2jpp.1.fc7 Reassigning for building in plague. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:18:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:18:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227067] Review Request: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151918.l1FJI2nN001828@bugzilla.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: javassist-3.1-1jpp - Java Programming Assistant: bytecode manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227067 ------- Additional Comments From keiths at redhat.com 2007-02-15 14:18 EST ------- Yeah, JDI is yet another of the API layers on top of JVMTI that one can use to do all sorts of things to a VM. JDWP won't help because we don't use that layer. We could, for sure, but just look at how JVMTI mucked with the schedule. More info here: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/jpda/jdi/index.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:20:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:20:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227089] Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151920.l1FJKjsS002064@bugzilla.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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-15 14:20 EST ------- X suggests the subsection needs attention + is a positive comment . is a specific comment about a problem MUST: X* package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name . The source does not match the CVS tag it claims. There is an extra class in the sources which is not in the tag. Use the msv-20060821 tag to extract the missing class: msv/xsdlib/src/com/sun/msv/datatype/xsd/DateType.java - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency + OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec + OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name . Needs to conform to JPackage exception naming convention X* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved . Seems OK, though I would like to get clearance from an experienced Fedora reviwer to ensure the licensing terms are clear for import? - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware + Dont think any of these apply * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common + Seems OK, though I would like to get clearance from an experienced Fedora reviwer to ensure the licensing terms are clear for import? * specfile name matches %{name} + OK X* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) + There is a missing class in the claimed tag 20050722, I suggest replacing the tar ball with a clean export, see above - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah . Add instructions on how the source should be exported * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. + OK X* correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + Needs to be fixed * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) + Needs to conform to the fedora jpackage exception X * license text included in package and marked with %doc . Needs a lot of %doc-ing * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) + N/A * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) + OK * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there ? * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. + OK * Packager tag should not be used + OK * Vendor tag should not be used + OK * Distribution tag should not be used + OK * use License and not Copyright + OK * Summary tag should not end in a period + OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) + OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement X* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 . doesnt compile due to missing BRs. * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package + OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) + OK X * make sure lines are <= 80 characters + Some lines are larger but they are macro definitions, this can possibly fly * specfile written in American English + OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b + N/A * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? + None of the above dont apply * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS + OK * don't use %makeinstall + OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install + OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps + OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable + Not relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content + OK X* package should own all directories and files + Need jpackage-utils in requires... * there should be no %files duplicates + OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present + OK * %clean should be present + OK * %doc files should not affect runtime + OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www + Not a webapp * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs X* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . Doesnt build on mock or on JPackage reference machine since it needs crimson Source: rpmlint -i msv-1.2-0.20050722.3jpp.src.rpm W: msv non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". W: msv unversioned-explicit-provides msv-strict The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. W: msv unversioned-explicit-obsoletes msv-strict The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. W: msv unversioned-explicit-provides msv-strict-javadoc The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. W: msv unversioned-explicit-obsoletes msv-strict-javadoc The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. W: msv unversioned-explicit-provides xsdlib The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. W: msv unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xsdlib The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. W: msv unversioned-explicit-provides xsdlib-javadoc The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. W: msv unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xsdlib-javadoc The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc + OK X* package should build on i386 . Doesnt build on mock X* package should build in mock . Doesnt build on mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:21:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:21:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151921.l1FJLLF5002113@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-15 14:21 EST ------- I should write what I meant more politely... Well, ----------------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p -Dm 644" ----------------------------------------------------- should be ----------------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" ----------------------------------------------------- Executable bits on scripts/binaries will be removed when adding "-Dm 644". And the following lines ----------------------------------------------------- install -Dm 644 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/%{name} install -Dm 644 %{SOURCE2} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.apps/%{name} ----------------------------------------------------- are not fixed yet ("install -p -Dm 644" should be used also on the two lines above) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:27:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:27:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151927.l1FJRNO0002739@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(jorton at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-15 14:27 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:27:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:27:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151927.l1FJRuCh002832@bugzilla.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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-15 14:27 EST ------- Everything seems okay - it even runs on mock with no errors!!! Here's the link to the source rpm: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/dtdparser/dtdparser-1.21-3jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm Thanks Vivek. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:28:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:28:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151928.l1FJSElT002867@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(jorton at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-15 14:28 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:28:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:28:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215659] Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151928.l1FJSTBY002899@bugzilla.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: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215659 ------- Additional Comments From Jochen at herr-schmitt.de 2007-02-15 14:28 EST ------- Hello, unfortunately, I'm buissy with some multilib issues, so I don't have any time for this review now. It will be nice, if anyone can over my part. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:30:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151930.l1FJUp3a003055@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-15 14:30 EST ------- Fixing of bug #228891 is IMHO a _MUST_, too. Jason...correct me please, if you've got another opinion regarding this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:37:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:37:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151937.l1FJbApg003477@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-15 14:37 EST ------- Well, perhaps; the package as I have it available to me doesn't include that file (/usr/lib/libncurses.so.5) and it is not explicitly created by the package, so where is it coming from? Is ldconfig creating it at install time? libncurses.so.5 is in /lib as far as I can tell. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:37:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:37:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151937.l1FJbs1i003539@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-15 14:37 EST ------- /usr/lib/sendmail is a dangling symlink, which should be owned by sendmail, too. Paul, if this should not be relevant for this review, I'll create a own bug report for it, because unowned dangling symlinks are worse. IMHO this is another MUST for approving. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:40:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:40:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] New: Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses 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=228894 Summary: Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: steved at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/rpcbind/rpcbind.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/rpcbind/rpcbind-0.1.4-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: The rpcbind utility is a server that converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses. It must be running on the host to be able to make RPC calls on a server on that machine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:41:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:41:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151941.l1FJf7Ms003792@bugzilla.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: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 steved at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Core Component|Package Review |Package Review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:42:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:42:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227069] Review Request: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151942.l1FJgmmX003878@bugzilla.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: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227069 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-15 14:42 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:44:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:44:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151944.l1FJifIi003959@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-15 14:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > > E: tcl invalid-soname /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so libtcl8.4.so > It must stay for backward compatibility. Right. That's why I said the error could be ignored. > > html > Patch decline to generate useless html source. I think it's better than spend > time with generating. I don't want split tcl into two packages, maybe in new > version. It's small source for html. The html: target in the Makefile isn't run by either 'make' or 'make install', so won't get executed by the spec file anymore. You have to explitly run 'make html' to trigger it. Since 'make html' was removed from the spec file, the -html patch isn't needed. Splitting the -html package into a separate spec file isn't a requirement, but it is strongly encouraged because it will: * simplify the tcl spec file * make the tcl src rpm smaller * prevent needless updates to the -html package whenever tcl is rebuilt * shorten the build time for the tcl package since the -html subpackage won't be rebuilt * allow the -html files to be properly marked as 'noarch' > > Source does not match upstream. > Could you give me http of your source? Because I check it and they are the same. # curl -O http://puzzle.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/tcl/tcl8.4.13-src.tar.gz # md5sum tcl8.4.13-src.tar.gz c6b655ad5db095ee73227113220c0523 tcl8.4.13-src.tar.gz ...but this doesn't match the md5sum in the 'sources' file, nor does it match the md5sum from the tcl source tarball that I get when running 'make srpm'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:46:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:46:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151946.l1FJknxo004146@bugzilla.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: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 steved at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:48:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:48:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151948.l1FJmjmX004280@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-15 14:48 EST ------- It looks like the file is created by ldconfig at install time. However, we should get rid of the problem and I know, that there is /lib/libncurses.so.5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:53:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151953.l1FJrw0f004683@bugzilla.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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-15 14:53 EST ------- rpmlint says: W: dtdparser non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: dtdparser-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation Ignoring proup usage E: dtdparser-javadoc zero-length /usr/share/javadoc/dtdparser/package-list Ignoring since the package-list is generated at build time... rpm -qp --provides /home/vivekl/topdir-test/RPMS/i386/dtdparser-1.21-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm /home/vivekl/topdir-test/RPMS/i386/dtdparser-javadoc-1.21-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm /home/vivekl/topdir-test/RPMS/i386/dtdparser-debuginfo-1.21-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm dtdparser-1.21.jar.so dtdparser = 0:1.21-3jpp.1.fc7 dtdparser-javadoc = 0:1.21-3jpp.1.fc7 dtdparser-1.21.jar.so.debug dtdparser-debuginfo = 0:1.21-3jpp.1.fc7 rpm -qp --requires /home/vivekl/topdir-test/RPMS/i386/dtdparser-1.21-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm /home/vivekl/topdir-test/RPMS/i386/dtdparser-javadoc-1.21-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm /home/vivekl/topdir-test/RPMS/i386/dtdparser-debuginfo-1.21-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcj_bc.so.1 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 19:54:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:54:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702151954.l1FJsfJb004739@bugzilla.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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-15 14:54 EST ------- Everything looks good, APPROVED. Assigning to nsantos to build it into rawhide. Please update when it makes it into rawhide, on verification the bug can be closed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:00:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:00:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227106] Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152000.l1FK043L005141@bugzilla.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: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227106 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:00:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:00:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152000.l1FK0v3V005197@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vixie-cron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-15 15:00 EST ------- One IMHO-MUST independent of the review itself is, that /etc/cron.deny is not owned by the vixie-cron package, but it should be. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:04:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:04:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152004.l1FK4BWQ005327@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-15 15:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > > E: tcl invalid-soname /usr/lib/libtcl8.4.so libtcl8.4.so > It must stay for backward compatibility. > > > Use %{_libdir} instead of %{_prefix}/%{_lib} > Please see if it's everything allright. The use of %{_libdir} looks ok, but the backwards-compatible link is still wrong: cd %{_datadir} ln -s %{name}%{majorver} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}%{majorver} This creates the same recursive link: lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 2007-02-15 11:47 /usr/lib/tcl8.4 -> tcl8.4 I think you want either: ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}%{majorver} or ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}%{majorver} It's unclear to me from the comment in the spec file if this should be %{_prefix}/lib or %{_libdir} for backwards compatibility. Do you know which other packages need this backwards compatible link? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:09:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:09:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152009.l1FK9ewZ005826@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-15 15:09 EST ------- >I should write what I meant more politely... lol....^^ updated: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/ntfs-config.spec http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/ntfs-config-0.5.4-4.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:16:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:16:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228782] Review Request: tcl-html - HTML documentation for Tcl/Tk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152016.l1FKGbDO006240@bugzilla.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: tcl-html - HTML documentation for Tcl/Tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228782 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-15 15:16 EST ------- Also noted in the related bug: It is strongly encouraged because it will: * simplify the tcl spec file * make the tcl src rpm smaller * prevent needless updates to the -html package whenever tcl is rebuilt * shorten the build time for the tcl package since the -html subpackage won't be rebuilt * allow the -html package to be properly tagged as 'noarch' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:17:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:17:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152017.l1FKH8MI006296@bugzilla.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: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review+ | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-15 15:16 EST ------- I don't think this should be fedora-review+ until someone actually reviews and approves it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:25:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:25:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152025.l1FKPsY5007351@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: x2vnc - Dual|Review Request: x2vnc - Dual |screen hack for VNC |screen hack for VNC Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |lxtnow at gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:26:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:26:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152026.l1FKQE60007381@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-15 15:26 EST ------- A simple %ghost /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5 would probably do it, but it would be best to understand exactly why ldconfig is creating that symlink. I have no rawhide machines around at the moment so I can't really experiment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:35:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:35:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152035.l1FKZgvt008265@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-15 15:35 EST ------- In reply to comment #6: Thanks. Those 4 items all look good. Michael: Could you go over the latest version from cvs once more with the checklist and see if there is anything else that needs attention? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:43:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:43:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226475] Merge Review: SysVinit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152043.l1FKhLIH009466@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: SysVinit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-15 15:43 EST ------- 1. I would really like to see it changed to match upstream myself... ;) 2. good. ok. 3. good. ok. 4. ok. fine. 5. a) and b) and e) good. ok. 6. ok, so I don't suppose it's worth trying to push them again? 7. yeah, thats a minor issue, so it can be ignored I suppose. 8. Agreed, thats minor and not a blocker. So, the only outstanding issue I see is the rename? Would you be willing to do that? or would you prefer not to? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:53:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:53:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222522] Review Request: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152053.l1FKrd8G010821@bugzilla.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: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222522 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-15 15:53 EST ------- 1. Ah, yeah, I see all of those now except for NEWS. Not sure how useful that file is really, so it's a pretty minor item. 2. ok. 3. True, as long as nothing links to that binary library, it shouldn't matter. Can you confirm that the 'yellownet.so*' isn't linking to that binary module? 4. ok, thanks. Note that this might be fixed in an updated version already. 5. ok. 6. ok. Fair enough. 7. Excellent. Sounds good. So, the only outstanding issues are including the NEWS file if you want and to doublecheck and make sure the yellownet.so* files are never linking against the binary only yellow .so thats shipped with the package. I'll go ahead and APPROVE this package now. If you could check the library and address the NEWS file before importing that would be great. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 20:58:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:58:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228294] Review Request: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152058.l1FKwQjm011213@bugzilla.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: gkrellm-sun - Sun clock plugin for GKrellM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228294 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-15 15:58 EST ------- In reply to comment #5: Unfortunately, nothing useful seems to have come out of the discussion on extras-list. ;( Would you be willing to change the buildroot here (and in gkrellm-moon/any other blocked submissions) to get them approved for now, and then work with the package committee to get some more acceptable buildroot solution ratified down the road? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 21:06:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:06:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227048] Review Request: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152106.l1FL6t07012068@bugzilla.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: dom2-core-tests-0.0.1-0.20040405.1jpp - DOM Conformance Test Suite https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227048 ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-15 16:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > > W: dom2-core-tests no-documentation > The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). > You have to include documentation files. > > Everything else looks a-okay to me. > I think this can be ignored. I looked in the build root and there is nothing appropriate to add... > -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 21:10:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220284] Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152110.l1FLAwHN012369@bugzilla.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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284 ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-15 16:10 EST ------- Please import this package. :( Since there is more than a month of lack of submitter's feedback "a comment is added to the ticket indicating that the review is stalled and that a response is needed soon." -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 21:14:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:14:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227066] Review Request: jarjar-0.6-2jpp - Jar Jar Links In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152114.l1FLEcn1012497@bugzilla.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: jarjar-0.6-2jpp - Jar Jar Links https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227066 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-15 16:14 EST ------- Revised spec file is here: http://people.redhat.com/nsantos/jarjar.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 21:27:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:27:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152127.l1FLR2Po013332@bugzilla.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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-15 16:27 EST ------- if you can leave x86_64 enabled and use libdir in build step: scons %{?_smp_mflags} \ destdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT \ libdir=%{_libdir} \ install_prefix=%{_prefix} \ sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir} \ no_rpath=true \ build I will try to build revision 780 which i supposed to fix the x86_64 bug... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 21:33:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:33:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152133.l1FLXg8Y013625@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-15 16:33 EST ------- The -devel package for the -10 release is missing the private header files. It looks like the mkdir command to create the tcl-private directory got lost in the spec file: mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_includedir}/%{name}-private/{generic,unix} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 22:12:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:12:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220284] Review Request: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152212.l1FMCLnj015850@bugzilla.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: bcfg2 - Configuration management client and server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220284 jeff at ocjtech.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-15 17:12 EST ------- It's been imported and built for some time now, guess I forgot to close the ticket... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 22:19:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152219.l1FMJALg016554@bugzilla.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: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-15 17:18 EST ------- Fixed spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/junitperf/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 22:30:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:30:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227047] Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152230.l1FMU5re017468@bugzilla.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: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 22:37:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:37:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152237.l1FMbMES017761@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fnasser at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-15 17:37 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy-1.0-0.1.r7dev.1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 22:57:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:57:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152257.l1FMv25B018665@bugzilla.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: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 ------- Additional Comments From steved at redhat.com 2007-02-15 17:57 EST ------- Sorry about that... I ment to set the '?' flag, not the '+' flag assuming that the way things should work... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 23:01:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:01:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227042] Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152301.l1FN1rNs018889@bugzilla.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: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-15 18:01 EST ------- MUST: X package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name --> Changed %Release to 2jpp.1%{?dist}. * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved --> Okay. X license field matches the actual license. --> The %License tag is currently GPL. However, on their website (http://byaccj.sourceforge.net/) it states that it has no license. The jpackage website (http://www.jpackage.org/browser/rpm.php?jppversion=1.7&id=27) states that it is GPL, but on the SourceForge website (http://sourceforge.net/projects/byaccj), it states that it is Public Domain. There is no LICENSE.txt file (or anything along those lines) included in the package, so I presume its license is Public Doman, so I changed it to Public Domain. What do you think??? * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common --> Okay. * specfile name matches %{name} --> Okay. * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah --> Okay. * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. --> Okay. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --> Fixed. * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) --> Okay. X license text included in package and marked with %doc --> License text is not included (not sure what the license is - see above). Does the license text need to be included? * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) --> Okay. X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there --> W: byaccj non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java (This warning can be ignored.) * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. --> Okay. * Packager tag should not be used --> Okay. X Vendor tag should not be used --> Removed. X Distribution tag should not be used --> Removed. * use License and not Copyright --> Okay * Summary tag should not end in a period --> Okay * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) --> Okay. * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement --> Okay. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 --> Okay. X BuildRequires are proper i - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which --> gcc and make were both listed as BuildRequires, so I removed them. * summary should be a short and concise description of the package --> Okay. X description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) --> The description mentions a new flag "-J". I left it, but should that sentence be left in??? * make sure lines are <= 80 characters --> Okay. * specfile written in American English --> Okay. * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b --> Okay. * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible --> Okay. * don't use rpath --> Okay. * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) --> Okay. * GUI apps should contain .desktop files --> Okay. * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? --> Okay. * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS --> Okay. * don't use %makeinstall --> Okay. * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install --> Okay. * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps --> Okay. * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines --> Okay. * package should probably not be relocatable --> Okay. * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content --> Okay. * package should own all directories and files --> Okay. * there should be no %files duplicates --> Okay. * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present --> Okay. * %clean should be present --> Okay. * %doc files should not affect runtime --> Okay. * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www --> Okay. X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs --> rpm -qp --provides /home/tbento/reviews/byaccj/RPMS/i386/* : byaccj = 0:1.11-2jpp.1 byaccj-debuginfo = 0:1.11-2jpp.1 --> rpm -qp --provides /home/tbento/reviews/byaccj/RPMS/i386/*: byaccj = 0:1.11-2jpp.1 byaccj-debuginfo = 0:1.11-2jpp.1 X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs --> rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/byaccj-1.11-2jpp.1.i386.rpm: W: byaccj non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java --> This warning can be ignored. W: byaccj wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/byaccj-1.11/tf.y --> This has been fixed. SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc --> See above. * package should build on i386 --> Okay. I also removed the "%define section free". The spec file and source rpm can be found at the following URL: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/byaccj/ Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 23:15:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:15:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227047] Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152315.l1FNFrV5019379@bugzilla.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: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-15 18:15 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM (move to 1.1 final): http://overholt.ca/fedora/classworlds.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/classworlds-1.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 23:18:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:18:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227089] Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152318.l1FNIZxf019458@bugzilla.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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089 vivekl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-15 18:18 EST ------- I have put together a proposed srpm for Matt. Please start from this: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/msv/msv-1.2-0.1.20050722.3jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm Assigning to Andrew Overholt. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 23:20:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:20:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227042] Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152320.l1FNKwxU019598@bugzilla.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: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-15 18:20 EST ------- Please add URL of Source0. Please change Group to Development/Libraries. License is fine as this is specified in their readme. The file src/readme should be specified as %doc (it has the license info). Everything else is fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 23:22:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:22:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227042] Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152322.l1FNM1AX019669@bugzilla.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: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 15 23:50:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:50:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225368] Review Request: ack - Grep-like text finder In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702152350.l1FNoVkK020696@bugzilla.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: ack - Grep-like text finder https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225368 ianburrell at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 00:07:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:07:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160007.l1G072Ia021336@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-15 19:07 EST ------- Preferences show be visible again with gnome-menus-2.17.91-2.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 00:08:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:08:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225680] Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160008.l1G08De0021431@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225680 mclasen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|RAWHIDE | ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-15 19:08 EST ------- Argh, wrong bug. Sorry -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 00:22:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:22:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160022.l1G0M5p7021897@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-15 19:22 EST ------- Sorry, apologies, I incorrectly marked this review needsponsor, but I see you already own a number of packages in Extras. :-) (In reply to comment #6) > In FE I have found: charis-fonts, gentium-fonts, artwiz-aleczapka-fonts and > many others, instead there are only 3 fonts-* packages so I thought naming this > package tibetan-machine-uni-fonts would be ok, but of course I could rename it. Point. Hmm, unfortunately we don't seem to have clear policy on naming fonts packages. In Core currently most core fonts are now named "fonts-". I'm not familiar with most of the fonts in Extras, but some of them look like more miscellaneous fonts, etc. So I can see both points of view. So my take is, if this is the standard free font for Tibetan then we should probably name it fonts-tibetan, otherwise we can keep the current name. > I also have next problem, it's called ;) Jomolhari Font > (http://www.thdl.org/tools/fonts/tibfonts.php?l=uva200607171100) which I would > also want to put it in FE, but I don't known should I include this font in > fonts-tibetan (beside that fonts could display not only Tibetan but also > Dzongkha and Ladakhi) package? Right both fonts seem to cover more than one language, but maybe it is ok. If the main use of this is also for Tibetan I think it is fine to include in fonts-tibetan if it is also useful for general users of Tibetan. Both fonts are under GPL so that is ok anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 00:25:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:25:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160025.l1G0PGhB022040@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-15 19:25 EST ------- One more question, I haven't tested the font(s) yet, do we have any support for OTF fonts yet in Fedora? Do we need libotf or something for that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 00:47:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:47:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160047.l1G0lweI022866@bugzilla.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: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-15 19:47 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM (alpha-10-stable): http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 00:54:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:54:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160054.l1G0sHa0023024@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-15 19:53 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK X * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on this though * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used OK X * Vendor tag should not be used Tag is still there X * Distribution tag should not be used Tag is still there * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b OK * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath OK * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) OK * GUI apps should contain .desktop files OK * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK X * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps Lines in %install use cp -a .. consider using cp -ap * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK X * package should own all directories and files /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present Ok * %doc files should not affect runtime OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK X * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs Missing a "Requires: xml-commoms-apis" ? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs OK SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock Additionally: - Need to put %define gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec - 's' after the '-' in BSD-style should be capital -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:03:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227047] Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160103.l1G138ca023358@bugzilla.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: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-15 20:02 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah md5s do not match, but contents do * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) release tag should have a %{?dist} * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK X * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on this though * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * Distribution tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b OK * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath OK * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) OK * GUI apps should contain .desktop files OK * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK X * package should own all directories and files /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present Ok * %doc files should not affect runtime OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs OK SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:22:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:22:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 210776] Review Request: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160122.l1G1MYDL023808@bugzilla.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: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210776 ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2007-02-15 20:22 EST ------- Spec URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/mono-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/mono-tools-1.2.3-1.src.rpm Got everything except gnunit(2) to work. I've reported these upstream, but there doesn't seem to be a way to switch them off during the build - I've therefore excluded them from being added to the final RPMs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:29:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:29:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220402] Review Request: jscall-sharp-0.0.2 - a JS binding for gecko-sharp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160129.l1G1T9mc024015@bugzilla.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: jscall-sharp-0.0.2 - a JS binding for gecko-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220402 ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2007-02-15 20:29 EST ------- Anyone fancy taking this? The next version of MD is due soon and it would be great to include ASP.NET support. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:35:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:35:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160135.l1G1ZYRC024193@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-15 20:35 EST ------- * "cp %{SOURCE1} %{name}.desktop" from %prep section is useless. you can directly use %{SOURCE1} in desktop-file-install entry. > Shouldn't it be fedora instead? The guidlines say "If upstream uses > , leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as ." > I used fedora in the latest spec. vendor id is not require anymore. resume from guilines : [ # The Vendor tag should not be used. It is set automatically by the build system. ] * You use an 48x48 icon, and i think it maybe souhld be install in %{_datadir}/icons/ * Also add -p option to install (install -p -Dm 644 /.././) * You should add timestamp to make install: make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:37:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:37:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160137.l1G1bChr024239@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-15 20:37 EST ------- s/quilines/guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:39:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:39:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208613] Review Request: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160139.l1G1dhsr024314@bugzilla.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: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208613 fitzsim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-15 20:39 EST ------- OK, I think that settles it. Though it would be nice to satisfy concern 2) as well, the simplicity of this compromise probably outweighs the downsides of a split libgcj. I'm closing this WONTFIX. -- 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 Feb 16 01:41:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:41:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223557] Review Request: mdbtools - tools for extracting things from Access databases In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160141.l1G1f2eQ024433@bugzilla.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: mdbtools - tools for extracting things from Access databases https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223557 ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2007-02-15 20:41 EST ------- Spec URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/mdbtools.spec SRPM URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/mdbtools-0.5-5.src.rpm Fixes all of #6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:41:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:41:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222087] Review Request: pcmanx-gtk2 - Telnet client designed for BBS browsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160141.l1G1fewc024474@bugzilla.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: pcmanx-gtk2 - Telnet client designed for BBS browsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222087 sdl.web at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(sdl.web at gmail.com)| ------- Additional Comments From sdl.web at gmail.com 2007-02-15 20:41 EST ------- I am on vacation till 5 March. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:51:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:51:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223627] Review Request: system-switch-java - Java toolset switcher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160151.l1G1p55M024714@bugzilla.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: system-switch-java - Java toolset switcher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223627 anze.zagar at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |anze.zagar at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From anze.zagar at gmail.com 2007-02-15 20:50 EST ------- I created a very similar tool that I've been successfully using for about a year now but only recently found time to put it on sourceforge. Just thought you might want to check out that tool as well: http://sourceforge.net/projects/javaselector There's also a spec file, source rpm and binary rpm for FC2, 4 & 6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:51:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:51:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160151.l1G1pMif024736@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-15 20:50 EST ------- Approved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:57:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:57:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 193059] Review Request: ibmasm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160157.l1G1vFLW024949@bugzilla.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: ibmasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193059 paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 01:57:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:57:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227044] Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160157.l1G1vjo4025002@bugzilla.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: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227044 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-15 20:57 EST ------- Fixed spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/checkstyle/checkstyle.spec http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/checkstyle/checkstyle-4.1-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm Some lines are > 80 characters. Most of them are file names, so they cannot broken. There is also one perl command which extends to > 80 which I did not break because I think it looks cleaner on one line. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 02:42:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:42:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160242.l1G2gbTn026223@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-15 21:42 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 02:51:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:51:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160251.l1G2p5s4026467@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-15 21:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > - I don't use autoconf's config.sub/guess as they require help2man. Sorry, what you say here does not apply. It's a side-effect of a questionable feature in %configure: %configure replaces config.guess/config.sub => Timestamps are being altered => rebuilding the corresponding man-pages With your spec: # rpmbuild autoconf.spec ... ++ find . -name config.guess -o -name config.sub + for i in '$(find . -name config.guess -o -name config.sub)' ++ basename ./build-aux/config.guess + '[' -f /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/config.guess ']' + /bin/rm -f ./build-aux/config.guess ++ basename ./build-aux/config.guess + /bin/cp -fv /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/config.guess ./build-aux/config.guess `/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/config.guess' -> `./build-aux/config.guess' + for i in '$(find . -name config.guess -o -name config.sub)' ++ basename ./build-aux/config.sub + '[' -f /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/config.sub ']' + /bin/rm -f ./build-aux/config.sub ++ basename ./build-aux/config.sub + /bin/cp -fv /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/config.sub ./build-aux/config.sub `/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/config.sub' -> `./build-aux/config.sub' ... => %configure messed up the sources I.e. if using plain ./configure instead of %configure, this issue goes away. Try this patch and you will see: Index: autoconf.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/dist/devel/autoconf/autoconf.spec,v retrieving revision 1.41 diff -u -r1.41 autoconf.spec --- autoconf.spec 15 Feb 2007 11:34:43 -0000 1.41 +++ autoconf.spec 16 Feb 2007 02:47:02 -0000 @@ -33,13 +33,8 @@ %setup -q %build -# move config files out of they way as they require help2man from extras: -cp -p build-aux/config{.,-}guess -cp -p build-aux/config{.,-}sub -%configure -# ... and restore them: -mv build-aux/config{-,.}guess -mv build-aux/config{-,.}sub +./configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --mandir=%{_mandir} --infodir=%{_infodir} \ + --bindir=%{_bindir} --datadir=%{_datadir} make # %{?_smp_mflags} Makefile not smp save #check -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 03:22:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:22:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160322.l1G3MZpb027681@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-15 22:22 EST ------- Sure, but again, I still don't have access to FedoraBugs group. Oh well. Everything looks good. Rpmlint does show some output, but it is understandable when profile* is in /etc. OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. XX - No rpmlint output. (Not a blocker IMO, I understand and agree with output) [builder at rawhide i386]$ rpmlint coreutils-6.7-5.i386.rpm E: coreutils setuid-binary /bin/su root 04755 E: coreutils non-standard-executable-perm /bin/su 04755 E: coreutils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/colorls.sh E: coreutils executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/colorls.sh 0755 E: coreutils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/colorls.csh E: coreutils executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/colorls.csh 0755 W: coreutils dangerous-command-in-%post mv SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK- Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 03:24:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:24:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160324.l1G3OEk1027790@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-15 22:24 EST ------- Forgot rpmlint on the SRPM. The explicit provide of stat could have version. [builder at rawhide SRPMS]$ rpmlint coreutils-6.7-5.src.rpm W: coreutils strange-permission coreutils-colorls.sh 0775 W: coreutils strange-permission coreutils-colorls.csh 0775 W: coreutils unversioned-explicit-provides stat W: coreutils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes stat -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 03:28:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:28:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160328.l1G3Scvg028100@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-15 22:28 EST ------- - CONSIDER: I'd recommend to filter the 'perl(Autom4te::*)' provides/requires. IMO, they are bogus, because these modules are not in perl's module search path, but are autoconf internal perl-modules. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 03:30:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:30:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225302] Merge Review: automake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160330.l1G3U3Ru028193@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225302 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203 at freenet.de ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-15 22:30 EST ------- Most of the comments having been applied to the autoconf packages also apply here: - Use "make DESTDIR=... install" instead of %makeinstall - BuildRoot - BuildArchitectures - Use Requires(Pre,Preun) instead of Prereq ... Additionally: - CONSIDER: Add all %{_*dirs} you are using in %files to ./configure (cf. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296#c3) - CONSIDER: I'd recommend to filter the 'perl(Automake::*)' provides/requires. IMO, they are bogus, because these modules are not in perl's module search path, but are automake internal perl-modules. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 03:59:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:59:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226273] Merge Review: perl-Net-Telnet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160359.l1G3xlex029895@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Net-Telnet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226273 ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-15 22:59 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should package latest version OK - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: XX -- License is GPL or Artistic, not sure if that is valid. XX -- License (GPL or Artistic) Not include in package (%doc area) XX -- Should have dist tag XX -- MANIFEST shouldn't be included in Perl modules. [builder at rawhide noarch]$ rpmlint perl-Net-Telnet-3.03-5.noarch.rpm E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long Net::Telnet allows you to make client connections to a TCP port and do network I/O, E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long especially to a port using the TELNET protocol. Simple I/O methods such as print, E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long get, and getline are provided. More sophisticated interactive features are provided E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long because connecting to a TELNET port ultimately means communicating with a program E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long designed for human interaction. These interactive features include the ability to E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long specify a time-out and to wait for patterns to appear in the input stream, such as W: perl-Net-Telnet manifest-in-perl-module /usr/share/doc/perl-Net-Telnet-3.03/MANIFEST [builder at rawhide noarch]$ [builder at rawhide SRPMS]$ rpmlint -I manifest-in-perl-module manifest-in-perl-module : This perl module package contains a MANIFEST or a MANIFEST.SKIP file in the documentation directory. [builder at rawhide SRPMS]$ rpmlint perl-Net-Telnet-3.03-5.src.rpm E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long Net::Telnet allows you to make client connections to a TCP port and do network I/O, E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long especially to a port using the TELNET protocol. Simple I/O methods such as print, E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long get, and getline are provided. More sophisticated interactive features are provided E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long because connecting to a TELNET port ultimately means communicating with a program E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long designed for human interaction. These interactive features include the ability to E: perl-Net-Telnet description-line-too-long specify a time-out and to wait for patterns to appear in the input stream, such as W: perl-Net-Telnet mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 1) [builder at rawhide SRPMS]$ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 04:08:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:08:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160408.l1G48m8Z030475@bugzilla.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: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 04:35:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:35:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227065] Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160435.l1G4Zsjw032378@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227065 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-15 23:35 EST ------- spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/j-c-net/jakarta-commons-net.spec http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/j-c-net/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 04:36:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:36:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217671] Review Request: libhangul - Hangul input library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160436.l1G4aUA7032462@bugzilla.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: libhangul - Hangul input library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217671 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-15 23:36 EST ------- s/Fix/Fixes/ -- 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 Feb 16 04:52:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:52:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160452.l1G4qobu001337@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 mastahnke at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mastahnke at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-15 23:52 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. XX- License is GPL or Artistic ok? OK - License field in spec matches XX- License file included in package -- no license included OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: XX - No rpmlint output [builder at rawhide SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i perl-Archive-Tar-1.30-1.src.rpm W: perl-Archive-Tar mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 3) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 04:53:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:53:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160453.l1G4rAPS001372@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-15 23:53 EST ------- Hi Xavier, > * "cp %{SOURCE1} %{name}.desktop" from %prep section is useless. > you can directly use %{SOURCE1} in desktop-file-install entry. I realize that. It is more legible to me to have the cp in %prep as it is easier in the editor to see what file %{SOURCE1} is referencing. Also it puts it in the builddir so that if someone does a %prep and then checks out the builddir they will see the file there. > vendor id is not require anymore. > resume from guilines : > [ # The Vendor tag should not be used. It is set automatically by the build > system. ] That quote is from the section on spec file tags. It is for a Vendor: tag, not for the vendor option to desktop-file-install. See the section on .desktop files: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop > * You use an 48x48 icon, and i think it maybe souhld be install in > %{_datadir}/icons/ I thought that %{_datadir}/icons/ was for themeable icons and such. I know there are lots of packages from core and extras that install icons in %{_datadir}/pixmaps. I don't see anything in the guidelines about this. Do you know where I can find discussion or current best practices on this? > * You should add timestamp to make install: > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" I have never seen that required or recommended before. Could you tell me why you feel it is needed and where it is discussed or recommended? I use the install line straight from the specfile template in rpmdevtools. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 04:53:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227065] Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160453.l1G4rO0A001401@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227065 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-15 23:53 EST ------- I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 05:02:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:02:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160502.l1G52VTT002193@bugzilla.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: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-16 00:02 EST ------- An updated rpm can be found here: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/224/plexus-archiver-1.0-0.1.a6.1jpp.1.src.rpm spec file: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/225/plexus-archiver.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 05:08:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:08:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227071] Review Request: jline-0.9.9-1jpp - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160508.l1G58PXn002412@bugzilla.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: jline-0.9.9-1jpp - Java library for reading and editing user input in console applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227071 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 05:09:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:09:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226391] Merge Review: scim-bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160509.l1G594TC002465@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-bridge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226391 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|ryo- | |dairiki at users.sourceforge.ne| |t | ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-16 00:09 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Do you want to fix this in the next release, Dairiki-san? > Or is it easier I just override the permissions in the spec file? Sorry, this is my bad: the icons are getting pulled in by %doc inclusion of the doc/ dir. If the icons are not going to be used would be easier to remove them from future tarballs though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 05:16:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:16:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227111] Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160516.l1G5GH6W002717@bugzilla.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: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227111 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-16 00:16 EST ------- X indicates items required fixing: MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export http://svn.qdox.codehaus.org/tags/QDOX_1_5/qdox # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah Need to specify how to get to the src tar ball, also it's now using svn instead of cvs * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) Release needs to be fixed. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache-style Software License W: qdox mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 48) * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used X Vendor tag should not be used X Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - remove BuildArch: noarch when adding gcj support. - BR: maven should be fixed, use ant instead. - get rid of BR for mockmaker, jmock * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm java jpackage-utils rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm qdox = 0:1.5-2jpp.1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm qdox-javadoc = 0:1.5-2jpp.1 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs rpmlint on rpmbuild built on i386: W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style W: qdox-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: qdox-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License style SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock will try this out when byaccj is available in mock. spec file and srpms at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/226/qdox.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/227/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 05:18:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:18:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160518.l1G5IBPj002807@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-16 00:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > > * You should add timestamp to make install: > > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" > > I have never seen that required or recommended before. Could you tell me why > you feel it is needed and where it is discussed or recommended? I use the > install line straight from the specfile template in rpmdevtools. Well, first check the "Timestamps" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Keeping timestamps on the files as much as possible makes it easier to check: * if the vendor (like you) has modified the original file * and when the files are created or modified and * this may avoid the creation of .rpmsave .rpmnew files when it is unnecessary So keeping timestamps is recommended, especially on documentations, image files, configuration files, ... Well, the ways to keep timestamps on the files automatically installed by "make install" differ according to packages, however, in general cases "make INSTALL="install -p" install" works. (there are many cases in that more fixes are needed). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 05:22:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226391] Merge Review: scim-bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160522.l1G5MiLg003146@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-bridge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226391 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-16 00:22 EST ------- w3m http://www.scim-im.org/ returns "Redirection loop detected". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 05:27:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:27:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227065] Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160527.l1G5RR7D003311@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227065 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-16 00:27 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah I'm getting different md5sum for commons-build.tar.gz, the one in srpm gives: 6854865ce0272a28261d4dc575595390, the one i created from svn co gives: 673883662fdb86bd361e9876e90196e5 * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) * license text included in package and marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Packager tag should not be used * Vendor tag should not be used * Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs will do this when i can build this in mock. * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 Built in i386 * package should build in mock will build in mock when all BRs are there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 05:27:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:27:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228955] New: Review Request: ngircd - A lightweight daemon for the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) 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=228955 Summary: Review Request: ngircd - A lightweight daemon for the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jafo-redhat at tummy.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/ngircd.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.tummy.com/pub/tummy/RPMS/SRPMS/ngircd-0.10.1-1.src.rpm Description: ngIRCd is a free open source daemon for the Internet Relay Chat (IRC), developed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). It's written from scratch and is not based upon the original IRCd like many others. Advantages: - no problems with servers using changing/non-static IP addresses. - small and lean configuration file. - free, modern and open source C code. - still under active development. ngIRCd is compatible to the "original" ircd 2.10.3p3, so you can run mixed networks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 05:44:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:44:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227065] Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160544.l1G5iKGE004050@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227065 ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-16 00:44 EST ------- The md5s for the commons-build.tar.gz may differ due to different ownership/time/etc. If md5's don't match, comparison of sources is considered valid afaik. To compare sources, check out from svn, rename to commons-build.svn, then extract from commons-build.tar.gz and do: diff -cr commons-build commons-build.svn There should be no differences... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 06:11:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:11:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160611.l1G6BtCV005070@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-16 01:11 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Well, first check the "Timestamps" of > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Got it. I'll add -p to the copy and installation of the icon. Though neither of them are config files so they shouldn't ever generate any sort of .rpm{new,save} files. And in the case of the .destkop file the timestamp of the installed file will be whatever time the build was run as desktop-file-install will update it. (I'm now thinking I should have just kept the .desktop generation in the spec file.) > Keeping timestamps on the files as much as possible makes > it easier to check: > * if the vendor (like you) has modified the original file > * and when the files are created or modified The file will also be in cvs, so checking such things is always possible. :) > Well, the ways to keep timestamps on the files automatically installed > by "make install" differ according to packages, however, > in general cases "make INSTALL="install -p" install" works. > (there are many cases in that more fixes are needed). I've not run across any specfiles that do this. It's not in the guidelines that I can find (nor on the wiki anyplace, though my searching may just not have found it). I'd really like to see the pros and cons (if there are any) discussed more. I'll add it and test a little bit to see that it works as it should. If either of you has some pointers to places this has been discussed previously, please pass them along. My only concern is that I'll find out later that this can cause some problems that I'm not aware of. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 06:12:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:12:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160612.l1G6C6kk005104@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-16 01:12 EST ------- Also what is the difference between the TibetanMachineFont and TibetanMachineWebFont, btw? https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=61934 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 06:13:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:13:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160613.l1G6DbNx005143@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-16 01:13 EST ------- Mamoru, Your SRPM is working fine. But what about rpmlint errors coming on binary RPM? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 06:23:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:23:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160623.l1G6N3jC005431@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-16 01:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > Mamoru, > Your SRPM is working fine. But what > about rpmlint errors coming on binary RPM? Perhaps you are referring to the following? E: zhcon setuid-binary /usr/bin/zhcon root 04755 E: zhcon non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/zhcon 04755 This is because zhcon binary has setuid bit. Zheng (who is the submitter) explained this briefly (In reply to comment #6) > zhcon need the 4755 permission to access some devices. I don't know the details of this package, however, it seems that the right to access some device files under /dev is needed for this binary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 06:28:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:28:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160628.l1G6SgT4005691@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-16 01:28 EST ------- Notes: There are some applications which deals with multibyte characters on CUI. * bogl-bterm (maintained Miloslav Trmac) dropped setuid bits on /usr/bin/bterm, so currently only root can use this. * jfbterm (maintained by me) also remoded setuid bits, however console.perms file is introduced by the original maintainer (outside Fedora). Currently root or the first person who logged in to CUI can use jfbterm * kon2 (was maintained by Akira Tagoh, however kon2 was dropped... I don't know the reason) used setuid bits on /usr/bin/kon2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 06:53:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:53:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160653.l1G6rdpG006599@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-16 01:53 EST ------- I haven't tested, but your changes look good and saner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 06:56:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:56:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160656.l1G6u8cn006684@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-16 01:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > E: coreutils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/colorls.sh > E: coreutils executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/colorls.sh 0755 > E: coreutils executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/colorls.csh > E: coreutils executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/colorls.csh 0755 (In reply to comment #9) > W: coreutils strange-permission coreutils-colorls.sh 0775 > W: coreutils strange-permission coreutils-colorls.csh 0775 The perms should be fixed. There is no need for sourced files to be executable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 06:58:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:58:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227100] Review Request: plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp - Plexus Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160658.l1G6wGZ2006818@bugzilla.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: plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp - Plexus Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227100 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 07:15:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:15:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225298] Merge Review: automake14 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160715.l1G7FZBk007367@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake14 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225298 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-16 02:15 EST ------- * I think that autoconf isn't needed as BR * What is the point of mkdir -p info mv automake14.info* info * The Requires: perl is automatically found, so you can omit it if you like -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 07:31:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:31:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160731.l1G7V2kD007794@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 07:34:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:34:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160734.l1G7YmtG007907@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-16 02:34 EST ------- Perhaps instead of using install for the icon, a symlink is better? Like so: # install symlink to menu icon mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps ln -s ../%{name}/pixmaps/%{name}-icon-48.png \ %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.png This saves on duplication of the icon file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 07:48:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:48:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223486] Review Request: happy - Haskell parser generator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160748.l1G7meIY008515@bugzilla.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: happy - Haskell parser generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223486 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-16 02:48 EST ------- Sorry for the slow review. Here are some comments: Rpmlint on the srpm gives: W: happy redundant-prefix-tag I think the dos2unix buildrequires can be dropped. Otherwise it looks ok to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 07:52:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:52:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223486] Review Request: happy - Haskell parser generator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160752.l1G7qOru008676@bugzilla.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: happy - Haskell parser generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223486 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-16 02:52 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148175) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148175&action=view) happy.spec-1.patch If you can update the package, then I will do a formal review. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 07:56:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:56:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228960] New: Review Request: java-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ 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=228960 Summary: Review Request: java-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fitzsim at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://fitzsim.org/packages/java-1.5.0-gcj.spec SRPM URL: http://fitzsim.org/packages/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0-1.src.rpm Description: java-1.5.0-gcj installs directory structures, shell scripts and symbolic links to create a JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 08:15:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228960] Review Request: java-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160815.l1G8Fxki010112@bugzilla.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: java-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228960 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com 2007-02-16 03:15 EST ------- A few notes for the reviewer: - this can't be built in mock until the GCJ with 1.5 support lands in Rawhide - I simplified the name, removing the -compat since people have been confused by it (thinking that it was a legacy compatibility package similar to e.g. compat-libgcc-296) - the rpmlint output is as clean as possible, but still claims some warnings and errors: $ rpmlint SRPMS/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0-1.src.rpm E: java-1.5.0-gcj hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib See comments in spec file -- this is needed to allow 64-bit JDK alternatives. $ rpmlint RPMS/i386/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0-1.i386.rpm E: java-1.5.0-gcj only-non-binary-in-usr-lib These non-binaries are symlinks to binaries so they should be in /usr/lib. W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/java/gcj-endorsed/mx4j-remote.jar ../mx4j/mx4j-remote.jar W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/bin/rmiregistry ../../../../../bin/grmiregistry W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/security/java.security ../../../../../security/classpath.security W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jaas-1.5.0.0.jar ../../jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/jaas.jar W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jdbc-stdext-1.5.0.0.jar ../../jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/jdbc-stdext.jar W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jsse-1.5.0.0.jar ../../jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/jsse.jar W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/bin/keytool ../../../../../bin/gkeytool W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jndi-1.5.0.0.jar ../../jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/jre/lib/jndi.jar W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/java/gcj-endorsed/mx4j.jar ../mx4j/mx4j.jar These are properly terminated by dependency packages. W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangerous-command-in-%post ln W: java-1.5.0-gcj dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln These are required to create compatibility symlinks. $ rpmlint RPMS/i386/java-1.5.0-gcj-devel-1.5.0.0-1.i386.rpm E: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel no-documentation W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/jarsigner ../../../../bin/gjarsigner W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/java ../../../../bin/gij W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/jar ../../../../bin/fastjar W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/rmic ../../../../bin/grmic W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/rmiregistry ../../../../bin/grmiregistry W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/keytool ../../../../bin/gkeytool W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/javac ../../../../bin/ecj W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/javah ../../../../bin/gjavah W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0/bin/appletviewer ../../../../bin/gappletviewer W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj java-1.5.0-gcj-1.5.0.0 W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangerous-command-in-%post ln W: java-1.5.0-gcj-devel dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln $ rpmlint RPMS/i386/java-1.5.0-gcj-javadoc-1.5.0.0-1.i386.rpm $ rpmlint RPMS/i386/java-1.5.0-gcj-src-1.5.0.0-1.i386.rpm W: java-1.5.0-gcj-src no-documentation This is a sub-package; the documentation is in the base package. W: java-1.5.0-gcj-src dangerous-command-in-%post ln W: java-1.5.0-gcj-src dangerous-command-in-%postun rm W: java-1.5.0-gcj-src dangerous-command-in-%trigger ln These are required to create and remove the src.zip compatibility symlink. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 08:25:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:25:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 169704] Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160825.l1G8PCfM010590@bugzilla.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: mosml - Moscow ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169704 jpmahowald at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com 2007-02-16 03:24 EST ------- FYI the mosml site seems to have a contributed rpm. Does not build on x86_64. Add to the x86_64 exclude tracker. 2.01-9 again, this time builds on F7 devel i386: rpmlint of mosml-devel-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-devel invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable W: mosml-devel no-documentation rpmlint of mosml-pg-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-pg invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable E: mosml-pg invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmpq.so libmpq.so W: mosml-pg no-documentation rpmlint of mosml-gd-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-gd invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable E: mosml-gd invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmgd.so libmgd.so W: mosml-gd no-documentation rpmlint of mosml-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable E: mosml invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmregex.so libmregex.so E: mosml invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmunix.so libmunix.so E: mosml invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmgmp.so libmgmp.so rpmlint of mosml-gdbm-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-gdbm invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable E: mosml-gdbm invalid-soname /usr/lib/mosml/lib/libmgdbm.so libmgdbm.so W: mosml-gdbm no-documentation rpmlint of mosml-docs-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-docs invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable rpmlint of mosml-examples-2.01-9.fc7.i386.rpm:W: mosml-examples invalid-license GPL/ATT/INRIA/Distributable no-documentation ignore, docs subpackage Good: + Proper BuildRoot + Macros throughout + subpackages require base package + commented + defattr for all packages + ownership good + header files split out + Downloaded source matches APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 08:32:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:32:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160832.l1G8WnoR010948@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-16 03:32 EST ------- The man pages are installed with bad perms. Should be install -p -m644 bzip2.1 bzdiff.1 bzgrep.1 bzmore.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1/ -devel should not require the main package. There is no static library, the %description should be updated. Suggestions: use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) use URL: http://www.bzip.org/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 09:11:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:11:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225735] Merge Review: ethtool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160911.l1G9BtS0014839@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ethtool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225735 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(jgarzik at redhat.com | |) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 09:13:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160913.l1G9DrLI015017@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-16 04:13 EST ------- Fixed in bzip2-1.0.4-6.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 09:32:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:32:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160932.l1G9WxsV016429@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dan at danny.cz |jnovy at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-16 04:32 EST ------- Now all problems were cleared, so this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 09:35:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:35:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160935.l1G9ZlnH016566@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-16 04:35 EST ------- Dan, thanks for your comments and review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 09:49:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:49:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702160949.l1G9nbbG017270@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 10:03:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:03:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215659] Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161003.l1GA3Je6018112@bugzilla.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: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215659 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|Jochen at herr-schmitt.de |matthias at rpmforge.net ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-16 05:03 EST ------- Sure, I'll take over. Expect (hopefully) a first review later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 10:04:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:04:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228969] New: Review Request: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer 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=228969 Summary: Review Request: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: hellwolf.misty at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/wxglade.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/wxGlade-0.4.1-1.src.rpm Description: wxGlade is a GUI designer written in Python with the popular GUI toolkit wxPython, that helps you create wxWidgets/wxPython user interfaces. At the moment it can generate Python, C++, Perl and XRC (wxWidgets' XML resources) code. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 10:16:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:16:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228970] New: Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences 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=228970 Summary: Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: Christian.Iseli at licr.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.licr.org/pub/elph.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.licr.org/pub/elph-1.0.1-0.src.rpm Description: ELPH is a general-purpose Gibbs sampler for finding motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences. The program takes as input a set containing anywhere from a few dozen to thousands of sequences, and searches through them for the most common motif, assuming that each sequence contains one copy of the motif. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 10:19:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:19:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228971] New: Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA 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=228971 Summary: Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: Christian.Iseli at licr.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://ftp.licr.org/pub/glimmer.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.licr.org/pub/glimmer-3.02-0.src.rpm Description: Glimmer is a system for finding genes in microbial DNA, especially the genomes of bacteria, archaea, and viruses. Glimmer (Gene Locator and Interpolated Markov ModelER) uses interpolated Markov models (IMMs) to identify the coding regions and distinguish them from noncoding DNA. This packages requires the elph package also submitted for review: #228970 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 10:20:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:20:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228971] Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161020.l1GAKafx019162@bugzilla.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: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228971 Christian.Iseli at licr.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |228970 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 10:20:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:20:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228970] Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161020.l1GAKb01019166@bugzilla.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: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228970 Christian.Iseli at licr.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |228971 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 10:46:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:46:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225907] Merge Review: iptraf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161046.l1GAks5n021484@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: iptraf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225907 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mmaslano at redhat.com CC| |dan at danny.cz Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-16 05:46 EST ------- Formal review is here: OK source files match upstream: 9ee433d95573d612539da4b452e6cdcbca6ab6674a88bfbf6eaf12d4902b5163 iptraf-3.0.0.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires looks sane: OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. MUST FIX: BAD build root is NOT correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BAD rpmlint is NOT silent. I: iptraf checking W: iptraf summary-ended-with-dot A console-based network monitoring utility. E: iptraf non-standard-dir-perm /var/lock/iptraf 0700 E: iptraf non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/iptraf 0700 E: iptraf non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/iptraf 0700 can be ignored W: iptraf hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/iptraf-3.0.0/Documentation/stylesheet-images/.eps E: iptraf zero-length /usr/share/doc/iptraf-3.0.0/Documentation/stylesheet-images/.eps better will be to delete this file manually, I don't think it is really needed somewhere W: iptraf log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/iptraf maybe a logrotate.d file could be added I: iptraf checking W: iptraf summary-ended-with-dot A console-based network monitoring utility. W: iptraf hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/%{name}-%{version}-root see above -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 11:05:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:05:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226354] Merge Review: radvd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161105.l1GB5tYo023559@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: radvd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226354 mbacovsk at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 11:06:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:06:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161106.l1GB6Dw0023600@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 ------- Additional Comments From twoerner at redhat.com 2007-02-16 06:06 EST ------- No, /usr/lib/sendmail is generated by alternatives. It could also point to postfix or exim. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 11:07:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:07:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161107.l1GB7gM2023716@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-16 06:07 EST ------- > comment #11 I think correct will be ln -s {_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}%{majorver} The prefix was used for packages for lib or lib64. I don't know, which packages need this backward compatibility (not sure if they still needed, or if it's something what was forgoten in spec). > comment #12 yes, you're right -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 12:03:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:03:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161203.l1GC3qC0026949@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-16 07:03 EST ------- Tagged and built as 6.7-6.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 12:11:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:11:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226164] Merge Review: mtr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161211.l1GCBQMP027305@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mtr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226164 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mmaslano at redhat.com CC| |dan at danny.cz Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-16 07:11 EST ------- Formal review is here: OK source files match upstream: b742c46797ba23000e149c99127580d541ed44a69b5bbc44323211665c95e02a mtr-0.71.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (i386). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK final provides and requires look sane: OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. MUST FIX: BAD build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BAD latest version is NOT being packaged. version 0.72 is available BAD rpmlint is NOT silent. I: mtr-gtk checking W: mtr-gtk summary-ended-with-dot The GTK+ interface for mtr. E: mtr-gtk file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/applications/net-xmtr.desktop W: mtr-gtk conffile-without-noreplace-flag /usr/share/applications/net-xmtr.desktop do not mark it as a config file W: mtr-gtk non-conffile-in-etc /etc/pam.d/xmtr W: mtr-gtk non-conffile-in-etc /etc/security/console.apps/xmtr I: mtr checking W: mtr summary-ended-with-dot A network diagnostic tool. I: mtr (src.rpm) checking W: mtr summary-ended-with-dot A network diagnostic tool. W: mtr mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 327, tab: line 5) BAD is a GUI app contains a desktop file, but is not correctly handled (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755) you could create a new SourceX file and use desktop-file-install the Category: X-Red-Hat-Base should be removed Also the CVS repo contains some patches for previous versions that are not used now. Please "cvs remove" them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 13:04:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:04:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217671] Review Request: libhangul - Hangul input library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161304.l1GD4xFh030886@bugzilla.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: libhangul - Hangul input library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217671 ------- Additional Comments From tagoh at redhat.com 2007-02-16 08:04 EST ------- Thanks for reviewing. updated spec file and srpm file are: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/tagoh/libhangul/libhangul.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/tagoh/libhangul/libhangul-0.0.4-1.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 Feb 16 13:08:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:08:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228865] Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161308.l1GD8p2o031103@bugzilla.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: Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228865 rvokal at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|net-tools |Package Review AssignedTo|rvokal at redhat.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org QAContact|benl at redhat.com |extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC| |notting at redhat.com, fedora- | |package-review at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From rvokal at redhat.com 2007-02-16 08:08 EST ------- This package is in review process for RHEL5. What is the status for Fedora? Spec URL: cvs://cvs.devel.redhat.com/cvs/dist?rpms/ipw3945-ucode/RHEL-5/ipw3945-ucode.spec SRPM URL: cvs://cvs.devel.redhat.com/cvs/dist?rpms/ipw3945-ucode/RHEL-5 Description: This is the firmware which runs on the ipw3945 device. -- 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 Feb 16 13:10:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:10:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225754] Merge Review: finger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161310.l1GDAO0X031190@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: finger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225754 rvokal at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 13:35:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:35:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161335.l1GDZ6ER032731@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 jnovy at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 13:45:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161345.l1GDjG6E000666@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-16 08:45 EST ------- Okay. Two minor issues. * setup directory -------------------------------------------- %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} -------------------------------------------- is okay with -------------------------------------------- %setup -q -------------------------------------------- because the default directory is %{name}-%{version} * For Requires/BuildRequires of perl modules: -------------------------------------------- BuildRequires: perl-XML-Parser -------------------------------------------- Well, for perl modules, the preferred style is -------------------------------------------- BuildRequires: perl(XML::Parser) -------------------------------------------- Anything else is okay. ----------------------------------------------- This package (ntfs-config) is APPROVED by me. ----------------------------------------------- Please fill up http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded and import this package after cvsadmin does some needed procedure. By the way, are you in need of sponsor? I see that you assigned some review requests to yourself, however as far as I know the person who can review the bug must be in fedorabugs group, and then must be in cvsadmin group... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 13:50:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:50:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161350.l1GDobD8001074@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 13:51:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:51:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161351.l1GDpOjw001169@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 13:56:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226494] Merge Review: tk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161356.l1GDupqE001677@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226494 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-16 08:56 EST ------- Marcela, again, again and again: Watch out _before_ you cause unowned/orphaned directories, please! The directory /usr/share/tk8.4 is no longer owned by any package but should be owned by tk (like before): --- tk.spec 2007-02-15 16:25:56.000000000 +0100 +++ tk.spec.rsc 2007-02-16 14:56:01.000000000 +0100 @@ -105,11 +105,7 @@ %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_bindir}/wish* -%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}/demos/ -%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}/images/ -%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}/msgs/ -%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}/*.tcl -%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver}/tclIndex +%{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver} %{_libdir}/lib%{name}%{majorver}.so %{_libdir}/%{name}%{majorver} %{_mandir}/man1/* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 14:13:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:13:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161413.l1GEDNSu003329@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-16 09:13 EST ------- Any chance to own /usr/lib/sendmail somehow else? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 14:18:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:18:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161418.l1GEISTO003750@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-16 09:18 EST ------- Sorry, on fc6, building still fails with the jade/docbook error reported in #1. Did you try to build this package for fc6? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 14:44:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 191005] Review Request: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161444.l1GEi0nN005970@bugzilla.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: glob2 - Realtime Strategy game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191005 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-16 09:43 EST ------- Nikolai, as seen in comment 36 someone else who is already sponsored has also submitted glob2 for review. Probably because he thought this review is dead. Thats my fault as I've been swamped with other stuff lately and thus have neglected this review and sponsering you. Are you still interested in becoming an FE contributer? I assume you are, if you are please confirm then I shall review your other submission and sponsor you ASAP so that you can import your other submissions. I've also added you to the cc-list of the other glob2 review, I think it would be a good idea for you to co-maintain glob2 with the other submitter. Maybe you can add a comment to the new glob2 review how you think about this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 14:45:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:45:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225010] Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161445.l1GEj17A006070@bugzilla.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: glob2 - An innovative RTS game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225010 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-16 09:45 EST ------- Rafat, About closing bug 191005 as a dup of this, that review was actually still active I must admit it didn't look like that, that is because most of the discussion was taking place elsewhere as Nikolai needed (and still needs) sponsering. I didn't get around to reviewing one of his other packages and sponser him because of various circumstances. AFAIK Nikolai still wants to become an FE contributer and is still interested in maintaining glob2. Nikolai I've added you to the CC for this, what do you think about this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 14:45:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:45:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228865] Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161445.l1GEjFGY006121@bugzilla.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: Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228865 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-16 09:45 EST ------- AFAIK it was not submitted because of the binary only regulatory daemon. OTOH livna has it in the review queue -- 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 Feb 16 14:50:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:50:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161450.l1GEoaGq006718@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-16 09:50 EST ------- I think adding: Provides: /usr/lib/sendmail would achieve the desired result. I think that is how sendmail "owns" /usr/sbin/sendmail, which is also managed by alternatives. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 15:11:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:11:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226431] Merge Review: squid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161511.l1GFB2vP008676@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: squid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226431 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu BugsThisDependsOn| |198251 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-16 10:10 EST ------- MUST blocker (imo, anyway), samba RFE: "samba: make /var/cache/samba/windind_privledged group owned", bug #198251 (and related squid bug #198253), changing owner/group/permissions on a file/dir owned by another pkg is unacceptable (ie, squid's existing %triggerin -- samba-common /usr/sbin/usermod -a -G winbind squid >/dev/null 2>&1 || \ chgrp squid /var/cache/samba/winbindd_privileged >/dev/null 2>&1 || : -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 15:16:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:16:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225010] Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161516.l1GFG2FV009070@bugzilla.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: glob2 - An innovative RTS game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225010 ------- Additional Comments From rafalzaq at gmail.com 2007-02-16 10:16 EST ------- Ok, I'll wait for Nikolais reply. If he is really interested in maintaining glob2 I'll let him to do it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 15:19:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161519.l1GFJAcA009281@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-16 10:18 EST ------- > * setup directory > -------------------------------------------- > %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} > -------------------------------------------- > is okay with > -------------------------------------------- > %setup -q > -------------------------------------------- > because the default directory is %{name}-%{version} It's why i let it like that ;-) > Well, for perl modules, the preferred style is > -------------------------------------------- > BuildRequires: perl(XML::Parser) > -------------------------------------------- okay, i can change it to perl(XML::Parser) ;-) > Please fill up http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded > and import this package after cvsadmin does some needed procedure. > > By the way, are you in need of sponsor? I see that you > assigned some review requests to yourself, however > as far as I know the person who can review the bug must be in > fedorabugs group, and then must be in cvsadmin group... I'm in the fedorabugs group but, not in cvsadmin group yet. And i'm in fact still looking for sponsors... If you can do something for me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 15:29:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:29:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228865] Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161529.l1GFTqx0010094@bugzilla.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: Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228865 ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-16 10:29 EST ------- now that the binary only daemon is gone. the new driver should be ok for inclusion but to get into fedora it needs to get in the upstream kernel first -- 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 Feb 16 15:30:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161530.l1GFUprw010160@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-16 10:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18) > > * setup directory > It's why i let it like that ;-) Okay, I don't force it. > > > Please fill up http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded > > and import this package after cvsadmin does some needed procedure. > > > > By the way, are you in need of sponsor? > I'm in the fedorabugs group but, not in cvsadmin group yet. > And i'm in fact still looking for sponsors... > If you can do something for me. Then I will sponsor you. Please follow the procedure of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 15:33:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:33:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161533.l1GFXQkS010337@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ville.skytta at iki.fi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-16 10:33 EST ------- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 15:50:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:50:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225010] Review Request: glob2 - An innovative RTS game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161550.l1GFo9mX011790@bugzilla.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: glob2 - An innovative RTS game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225010 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-16 10:50 EST ------- Erm, thats not completely what I had in mind, what I had in mind (but didn't write) is that you and Nikolai could co-maintain it. Since Nikolai is somewhat new to all this I think co-maintaining would be a good idea! Now lets hope Nikolai responds soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 15:57:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:57:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161557.l1GFvEcu012832@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-16 10:56 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy-1.0-0.1.r7dev.1jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #15) > X * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on > this though Done. > X * Vendor tag should not be used > Tag is still there > > X * Distribution tag should not be used > Tag is still there Fixed, fixed. > X * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps > Lines in %install use cp -a .. consider using cp -ap Done. > X * package should own all directories and files > /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement Fixed. > X * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > Missing a "Requires: xml-commoms-apis" ? There is a Requires: xml-commons-apis already. > - Need to put %define gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec I've changed the crazy conditional gcj_support line to just be gcj_support 1 > - 's' after the '-' in BSD-style should be capital Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 15:59:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:59:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227065] Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161559.l1GFxr3w013125@bugzilla.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: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227065 pcheung at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-16 10:59 EST ------- Great! Did the diff -cr on the sources, and they match. Built it in mock successfully, here's the rpmlint output on mock built rpms: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-* W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Requires and Provides: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm commons-net = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7 jakarta-commons-net = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm java jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 oro >= 2.0.7 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-javadoc-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm jakarta-commons-net-javadoc = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-javadoc-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 APPROVED. Reassigning to myself as I need to build it in plague. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:01:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:01:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161601.l1GG1xLK013383@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mastahnke at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:01 EST ------- XX- License is GPL or Artistic ok? XX- License file included in package -- no license included As tibbs pointed out to us on IRC today, the license is included in the POD for this package: http://search.cpan.org/~kane/Archive-Tar-1.30/lib/Archive/Tar.pm#COPYRIGHT Or 'perldoc Archive::Tar' on a system with the package installed. 'GPL or Artistic' is standard for most CPAN modules. XX - No rpmlint output Should be fixed with perl-Archive-Tar-1.30-2.fc7.src.rpm, available soon. Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:16:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:16:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161616.l1GGGrrd015502@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-16 11:16 EST ------- > the license is included in the POD for this package: This is standared for most CPAN dist. > 'GPL or Artistic' is standard for most CPAN modules. This is the shortcut we once had agreed upon to use, when a perl-module's copyright carries license notice of this kind: "This library is free software; you may redistribute and/or modify it under the same terms as Perl itself." So licensing-wise this package seems OK. Wrt. to license files we once also had agreed upon NOT to require detached license files, unless the package contains one. i.e. if a perl-module contains one you MUST add it to %doc, if not you don't have to add one. So. both rpmlint complains are void. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:17:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:17:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228865] Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161617.l1GGHpfD015614@bugzilla.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: Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228865 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Package Review |kernel AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kernel-maint at redhat.com QAContact|extras-qa at fedoraproject.org |bbrock at redhat.com CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:17 EST ------- It will be added when the new iwlwifi driver is in some sort of upstream; it might be added if it's in the wireless tree, or the netdev tree, as long as it's on its way to Linus. Moving from the package review queue to the kernel. -- 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 Feb 16 16:25:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:25:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161625.l1GGP15k016596@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-16 11:24 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148205) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148205&action=view) Mock build log of KoboDeluxe-0.4-0.1.pre10.fc7 Well, for 0.4-0.1.pre10: * BuildRequires - mockbuild fails on FC7 i386. SDL_image-devel seems to be needed for BuildRequires. * Encodings - Some documentations installed by this package have other Encodings than UTF-8. Please change them to UTF-8. ------------------------------------------------------ README ISO-8859-1 README.jp ISO-2022-JP README.xkobo.jp ISO-2022-JP ------------------------------------------------------ * Documentation - README.osx I don't think this is useful. * Timestamps - This package contains many data files (especially under %{_datadir}/%{_name} ) and keeping timestamps on these files are recommended. For this package, it is done by ------------------------------------------------------- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p" ------------------------------------------------------- * Setgid bits - Well, would you just explain why setgid bits is required for the binary? ? Alsa issue - Well I tried to enable alsa support, however it failed because this package is for some old alsa-lib support (around alsa-lib 0.5.9). Well, if it is preferred to make this package have alsa support, would you contact upstream? * Functionality - Well, I tried this package on both FC5 and FC-devel. On FC-5, there is no problem, however, on FC-devel, it seems that kobodl hangs up completely. Well, as it hangs up after swithing to full screen mode, I don't know how to get a backtrace... Would you know any idea? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:26:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:26:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222522] Review Request: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161626.l1GGQU5e016855@bugzilla.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: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222522 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:26 EST ------- Looked at yellownet.so; it does not reference any symbols from that library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:27:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:27:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222522] Review Request: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161627.l1GGRI7S016958@bugzilla.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: aqbanking - A library for online banking functions and financial data import/export https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222522 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:27 EST ------- NEWS file added in CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:28:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:28:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228865] Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161628.l1GGSlAE017174@bugzilla.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: Feature Request: Add ipw3945 driver to core or extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228865 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com | -- 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 Feb 16 16:29:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:29:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161629.l1GGTEfE017227@bugzilla.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: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:28 EST ------- plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-container-default invalid-license Apache Software License and MIT -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters -- line 6 in %install is too long -- OK * specfile written in American English NA * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? NO * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- ... %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT # jars install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/plexus ... -- OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:32:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:32:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227042] Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161632.l1GGWOcN017634@bugzilla.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: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:32 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Please add URL of Source0. Fixed. > Please change Group to Development/Libraries. Fixed. > The file src/readme should be specified as %doc (it has the license info). Fixed. The source rpm and spec file can be found here: http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/ Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:37:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:37:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226475] Merge Review: SysVinit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161637.l1GGbTfg018373@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: SysVinit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:37 EST ------- Sure, why not? New stuff uploaded at http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/ - please double-check. Note that I'm *not* going to commit the rename until the package is moved - realistically, if we're doing a rename, it should be a new CVS module with the new name, etc., and I'd only rather do that once. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:40:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:40:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161640.l1GGepA0018780@bugzilla.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: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:40 EST ------- Review update: OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:41:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:41:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227042] Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161641.l1GGfAqw018851@bugzilla.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: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |vivekl at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:40 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:41:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:41:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227089] Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161641.l1GGfLoZ018886@bugzilla.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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:41 EST ------- Updated SRPM and spec: http://overholt.ca/fedora/msv.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/msv-1.2-0.1.20050722.3jpp.1.src.rpm The only rpmlint warning is on the demo sub-package about not having any documentation. I think this is fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:46:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:46:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161646.l1GGkxdV019826@bugzilla.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: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 jkeating at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Core |Fedora Extras Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Component|Package Review |Package Review AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jkeating at redhat.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |needinfo?(steved at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:46 EST ------- Couple issues thus far: Mixed tabs/spaces in the spec (URL line is tabbed, rest are spaces) Mixed use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, please pick one. Do you need to --prefix %{buildroot} ? doesn't %configure set a proper prefix that will be used when you do DESTDIR= in %install? Init files aren't supposed to be config files are they? Why is there an 'exit 0' in your %post ? Also the build fails in mock: security.c:24:27: error: rpcsvc/rquota.h: No such file or directory -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:50:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:50:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161650.l1GGoFkT020273@bugzilla.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: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:50 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc It's unfortunately not included so this must be ignored. > NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > > -- > $ rpmlint plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm > W: plexus-container-default invalid-license Apache Software License and MIT It's actually both so I can't see any way around it. > ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters > > -- > line 6 in %install is too long > -- Fixed. > NO * use macros appropriately and consistently > - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS I think that's fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:58:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:58:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161658.l1GGw0G5021106@bugzilla.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: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:57 EST ------- All looks good, marking fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 16:58:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:58:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227047] Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161658.l1GGwf15021209@bugzilla.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: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:58 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/classworlds.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/classworlds-1.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > release tag should have a %{?dist} Fixed. > X * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on > this though Fixed. > X * package should own all directories and files > /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 17:03:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:03:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227109] Review Request: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161703.l1GH3ScR021706@bugzilla.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: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227109 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jjohnstn at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 17:05:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:05:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227111] Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161705.l1GH5HiM021976@bugzilla.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: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227111 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 17:05:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227111] Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161705.l1GH5iRc022066@bugzilla.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: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227111 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 17:06:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:06:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161706.l1GH6Wmb022163@bugzilla.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: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 17:36:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:36:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161736.l1GHajqc024501@bugzilla.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: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-16 12:36 EST ------- Just a couple of things: - Remove "%define secion free". - Source0 should be a URL. - The license can be found in a few html pages in the following directory: target/docs/apidocs/org/codehaus/plexus/archiver - Remove the vendor tag. - Remove the distribution tag. - Some lines are more than 80 characters. - Should gcj support be added? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 17:36:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:36:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227044] Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161736.l1GHawAl024550@bugzilla.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: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227044 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-16 12:36 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * verify source and patches * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used properly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meet FHS X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output $ rpmlint checkstyle-4.1-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm W: checkstyle non-standard-group Development/Build Tools Let's make this Development/Tools * changelog fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License used and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find excalibur/avalon-logkit Java extension for this JVM /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Some specified jars were not found I removed this to make it build * BuildRequires are proper * summary fine * description fine * make sure lines are <= 80 characters . I'm fine with the ones that aren't * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * %makeinstall not used * no locale data * cp -p used * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs W: checkstyle non-standard-group Development/Build Tools W: checkstyle-demo non-standard-group Development/Build Tools These are fine but let's just make it Development/Tools W: checkstyle-demo no-documentation This is fine if there's nothing in the upstream sources E: checkstyle-javadoc zero-length /usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle-4.1/package-list Hmm, this should be fixed. W: checkstyle-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/checkstyle-manual-4.1/api /usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle This should also be fixed. W: checkstyle-manual symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/checkstyle-manual-4.1/api /usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle This too W: checkstyle-optional non-standard-group Development/Build Tools See above. W: checkstyle-optional no-documentation Fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 18:11:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:11:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161811.l1GIBRiK027010@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-16 13:11 EST ------- Removing NEEDSPONSOR. I am now sponsoring. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 18:11:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:11:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222960] Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161811.l1GIBvgK027067@bugzilla.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: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222960 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-16 13:11 EST ------- (Removing NEEDSPONSOR: bug 225075) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 18:16:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:16:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161816.l1GIGW2Y027632@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-16 13:16 EST ------- Missing Requires(pre): /sbin/install-info Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info Requires(post): grep, /sbin/install-info, coreutils I am not sure that coreutils in Requires(post) makes sense... Is Requires: grep, findutils really right? The versions are certainly wrong in Obsoletes. The latest packaged version (and versions below) should be obsoleted. The Provides also seems wrong to me. First of all I guess it should be %{version}-%{release}. But I am not sure that the current package version should be used for the Provides since it is a merge of packages that certainly had their own version. I think it is a bit strange to depend on itself and other packages that also depends on coreutils and are not really required, that is, anything else than the shell, gcc and make since there is a bootstrapping issue otherwise. But I guess that it is impossible to avoid that bootstraping issue (except by doing complicated things like using busybox...). I also guess that this issue is also there for gcc, make and bash, so... There is a huge amount of patches. Many could be submitted (even the pam one), or have they been submitted and rejected? /etc, /var and /usr/bin are hardcoded in the spec file, maybe they could be changed to macros. It may be relevant to to use -p for files installed, like DIR_COLORS, colorls.* ... pam files, since the files are certainly not changed often and the timestamp carry some information. sed could be used instead of perl -pi -e 's/basic-1//g' tests/stty/Makefile* and perl -pi -e 's,/etc/utmp,/var/run/utmp,g;s,/etc/wtmp,/var/run/wtmp,g' doc/coreutils.texi Suggestions: Add a comment above bzip2 -f9 old/*/C* || : to explain what it does Don't use -f for some rm invocations (like rm -f $RPM_BUILD_ROOT{%_bindir/$i,%_mandir/man1/$i.1}), don't add || : after bzip2 -f9 old/*/C* || :, and also do bzip2 -9f ChangeLog unconditionally such that they fail if something changes upstream. At the same time short-circuit should still work, so care should be taken. Maybe [[ -f ChangeLog && -f ChangeLog.bz2 ]] || bzip2 -9f ChangeLog should be in %install In the info scriptlets, I suggest removing the .gz from preun and post, and replace .bz2 by something appropriate. Maybe *, but care should be taken that it doesn't expands to more than one file. replace %defattr(-,root,root) by %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 18:25:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:25:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225827] Merge Review: gnome-nettool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161825.l1GIP4EE028658@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-nettool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225827 dakingun at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-16 13:25 EST ------- GOOD: * Build Ok in mock (x86_64) * License (GPL) and rpm Group tag OK * Naming meets the packaging guildlines * Handles locales appropriately * Buildrequires properly listed * rpmlint silent * Source file matches upstream 4d73e13da06200fe17c85f616b5e78392 gnome-nettool-2.17.4.tar.bz2 I hope you'll fix the earlier highlighted issues. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 19:19:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:19:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227044] Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161919.l1GJJKqf000462@bugzilla.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: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227044 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-16 14:19 EST ------- FYI, it builds in mock for me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 19:41:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:41:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702161941.l1GJfcW4002424@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From mgarski at post.pl 2007-02-16 14:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > So my take is, if this is the standard free font for Tibetan > then we should probably name it fonts-tibetan, otherwise we can keep > the current name. When you look at description in spec file and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_script you will see that using this fonts you can write in Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi. AFAIK TMU and Jomolhari are the only free TrueType OpenType Unicode fonts that's metter (http://www.thdl.org/tools/fonts/tibfonts.php?l=uva10924125554021&m=set), so I could assume they are standard fonts. Then my propose is to pack TMU and Jomolhari together and name it fonts-tibetan-dzongkha(-ladakhi)? (In reply to comment #8) > One more question, I haven't tested the font(s) yet, do we have any support > for OTF fonts yet in Fedora? Do we need libotf or something for that? Fedora should support OpenType out of box as it include FreeType. Pango supports Tibetan (probably Dzongkha) since 1.8.0 release (* Add Tibetan module [G Karunakar, Pema Geyleg]), in 1.11.0 shaper module was improved (* New improved Tibetan shaper module. [Pema Geyleg]). I don't know what's the status of Qt. Dzongkha's version of OO.org (ICU), GNOME and FF are available (some of them upstream). (In reply to comment #10) > Also what is the difference between the TibetanMachineFont and > TibetanMachineWebFont, btw? Tibetan Machine Uni is a Unicode version of TibetanMachineFont/TibetanMachineWebFont so this two are obsolete. As Tibetan is only standardized in Unicode I don't know encoding is used by TMF and TMWF. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 20:11:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:11:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162011.l1GKB7H8004841@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-16 15:10 EST ------- APPROVED. Reassigning to component owner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 20:12:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162012.l1GKCITS005004@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 20:15:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:15:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227047] Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162015.l1GKFjhT005308@bugzilla.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: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-16 15:15 EST ------- APPROVED. Reassigning to component owner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 20:17:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:17:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162017.l1GKHjSC005578@bugzilla.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: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 20:22:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:22:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227113] Review Request: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162022.l1GKMbB6006033@bugzilla.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: rhino-1.6-0.r2.2jpp - JavaScript for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227113 dbhole at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2007-02-16 15:22 EST ------- re-assigning -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 20:31:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:31:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226669] Merge Review: zip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162031.l1GKVE2e006439@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226669 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-16 15:31 EST ------- Some suggestions: * The crypt29 source seems to be unavailable. I have found: ftp://ftp.uu.net/pub/archiving/zip/src/zcrypt29.zip * rename exec-shield.patch zip-exec-shield.patch * add README.CR to %doc * replace %defattr(-,root,root) with %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 20:40:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:40:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227101] Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162040.l1GKeXg3007047@bugzilla.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: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227101 ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-16 15:40 EST ------- I uploaded the SRPM I built in mock. Here are the final ones just for posterify: http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 20:55:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:55:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162055.l1GKtTkU007924@bugzilla.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: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mwringe at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-16 15:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Just a couple of things: > > - Remove "%define secion free". Removed > - Source0 should be a URL. Source0 is taken from svn, so there is no download url for it. The svn instructions are included as comments in the spec > - The license can be found in a few html pages in the following directory: > target/docs/apidocs/org/codehaus/plexus/archiver These are the javadocs and are included in the javadoc subpackage. This project does not include license specific files. > - Remove the vendor tag. Done > - Remove the distribution tag. Done > - Some lines are more than 80 characters. Fixed > - Should gcj support be added? Gcj support added srpm and spec upload to same location as before -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 21:16:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:16:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226671] Merge Review: zlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162116.l1GLGxPL009569@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-16 16:16 EST ------- * the source is not one of those appearing on the home page. Moreover you could use the tar.bz2. * Is Prefix: %{_prefix} needed? * BuildRoot is not the preferred one * The comment in %build is misleading. It should better be something like # prepare Makefile for the static lib and in %install there could be a comment saying # the first make triggers compilation of the object files, linking of the # shared library and installs the library # The second make triggers the linking of the static library and # its installation * I think it would be better to have, in -devel http://www.zlib.net/manual.html and http://www.zlib.net/zlib_how.html * it seems to me that FAQ should be in %doc, and ChangeLog should be in the main package * -devel should Requires: zlib = %{version}-%{release} * It seems to me that there should be a make clean between the 2 make -f invocations, to trigger recompilation with the flags without -fPIC * I'll attach a patch to simplify the build and install, and use more macros. * zutil.h seems to be an internal header that should no be shipped * seems like that spec is not in utf8, certainly because of Glomsr?d * remove the dots at the end of the Summaries Suggestion: Change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 21:18:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:18:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226671] Merge Review: zlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162118.l1GLISYd009719@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-16 16:18 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148247) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148247&action=view) simplify %build and %install, remove redundant Prefix -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 21:24:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227107] Review Request: plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp - Plexus Velocity Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162124.l1GLO8vL010520@bugzilla.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: plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp - Plexus Velocity Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227107 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-16 16:24 EST ------- An updated source rpm and spec file can be found here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-velocity/ Just a note, the md5sums do not match, but I've verified that the contents are the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 21:32:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227077] Review Request: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162132.l1GLWCxc011410@bugzilla.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: junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp - JUnit extension for performance and scalability testing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227077 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-16 16:31 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * verify source and patches * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} is used properly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meet FHS * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output $ rpmlint junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.1.src.rpm W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing This is fine. * changelog fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary * make sure lines are <= 80 characters . the lines that aren't, I'm okay with * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package * macros used appropriately and consistently * no locale data * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web apps * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs $ rpmlint junitperf-*.noarch.rpm W: junitperf non-standard-group Development/Testing W: junitperf-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing W: junitperf-demo no-documentation These are all fine SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 21:33:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:33:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225635] Merge Review: cairo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162133.l1GLX4nI011472@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cairo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225635 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-02-16 16:33 EST ------- Just wanted to remove the Obsoletes. I'll go over my merge review bugs next week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 21:56:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:56:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162156.l1GLulm7012462@bugzilla.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: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 steved at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(steved at redhat.com)| ------- Additional Comments From steved at redhat.com 2007-02-16 16:56 EST ------- > Mixed tabs/spaces in the spec (URL line is tabbed, rest are spaces) changes the tabs to spaces > Mixed use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, please pick one. %{buildroot} won... > Do you need to --prefix %{buildroot} ? doesn't %configure set a proper prefix > that will be used when you do DESTDIR= in %install? True, --prefix %{buildroot} is not needed... > Init files aren't supposed to be config files are they? Per our IRC converstion, I would like to leave this in since thats the way a number of other RPC/NFS related packages work. > Why is there an 'exit 0' in your %post ? because someone complained about the %post not returning a zero exit code... but it really not needed in this case so I remove it. > security.c:24:27: error: rpcsvc/rquota.h: No such file or directory added a quota requirement so in the end here is the diff... diff -r1.1 rpcbind.spec 9c9 < URL: http://nfsv4.bullopensource.org --- > URL: http://nfsv4.bullopensource.org 19c19 < Requires: libtirpc --- > Requires: libtirpc quota 49,50c49 < --enable-debug \ < --prefix=%{buildroot} --- > --enable-debug 65c64 < rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT --- > rm -rf %{buildroot} 79d77 < exit 0 The source rpm and spec on my people page have been updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 21:57:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:57:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162157.l1GLvNOr012490@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-16 16:57 EST ------- oke a simple howto to simplify the problem. Open the src rpm package in mc of file-roller (enter CONTENTS.cpio) and extract all the files to the /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES dir The one file wich matters is the http://meverhagen.nl/fc6/i386/linuxwacom-7.6.1.spec spec file. Extract it to the /usr/src/redhat/SPECS run: rpmbuild -ba /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/linuxwacom-7.6.1.spec And then you should end up with a working rpm package for 64 bit If this fails enter this in the console cd /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/linuxwacom-0.7.6-4 ./configure --prefix=/usr --with-xorg-sdk=/usr --with-tcl=/usr --with-tk=/usr --enable-xserver64 make make install ofcouse you can tweak the ./configure line. It should be possible to configure without any options ! In this case you should create a few symlinks from /usr/lib/tk8.4 dir to /usr/local/lib/tk8.4 and a symlink from /usr/lib/tcl8.4 to /usr/local/lib/tcl8.4 In this case it will install into /usr/local/lib and you will have to manually copy the wacomcpl an wacomcpl-exec files from the src/wacomxi to /usr/bin dir. The lib dirs could be somehow different. But thats how I got it to work years ago by a ./configure and creating a few symlinks. (and ofcourse by editing the xorg.conf file, but for this I think the http://kxgenerator.xt.pl/ should be do the trick. A gui for the xorg.conf file. This doesn't work yet for the linuxwacom sections. however a little development should fix this. I hope I will find the time to help a bit with the development of this part of kxgenerator) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 21:59:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:59:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227068] Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162159.l1GLxT9X012617@bugzilla.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: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227068 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-16 16:58 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen-1.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 22:16:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:16:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227103] Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162216.l1GMGb8E013425@bugzilla.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: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227103 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-16 17:16 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-interactivity.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm I can't build this yet due to jline not being finished. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 22:19:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:19:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227109] Review Request: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162219.l1GMJU4I013632@bugzilla.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: pmd-3.6-1jpp - Scans Java source code and looks for potential problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227109 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-16 17:19 EST ------- All problems below taken care of except binary build which is blocked due to jaxen requirement. http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/pmd-3.6-1jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/pmd.spec MUST: X - remove defines at top - fill in Name, Version, and Release fields Fixed. X - release should be of form Xjpp.Y%{?dist} Fixed. X - instructions for source tar are incomplete Fixed. X - checking out source from CVS as specified and tarring does not result in same md5sum Fixed. Source replaced. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Fixed. X Vendor tag should not be used Fixed. X Distribution tag should not be used Fixed. X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 - waiting on jaxen X make sure lines are <= 80 characters Fixed. X run rpmlint on the src RPMs W: pmd non-standard-group Development/Testing E: pmd no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install W: pmd mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 30) Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 22:21:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:21:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162221.l1GMLuac013822@bugzilla.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: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-16 17:21 EST ------- Everything looks good to me. Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 22:36:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:36:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227049] Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162236.l1GMacig014768@bugzilla.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: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227049 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-16 17:36 EST ------- All comments addressed. There are minor warnings on rpmlint for no documentation in demo rpm and a strange permissions for .sh file in src rpm. These are ok. http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp.1.src.rpm http://www.vermillionskye.com/donwloads/dom4j.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 23:01:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:01:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226489] Merge Review: tftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162301.l1GN1N3a015861@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226489 mdehaan at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 23:02:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:02:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226489] Merge Review: tftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162302.l1GN2Kca015942@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226489 mdehaan at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mdehaan at redhat.com Flag| |fedora_requires_release_note | |?, fedora-review?, fedora- | |cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 23:07:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:07:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227103] Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162307.l1GN7ZXE016151@bugzilla.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: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227103 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-16 18:07 EST ------- Link to updated SRPM above is broken... Here's a partial review based on the specfile: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NA * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NA * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 23:11:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:11:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227068] Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162311.l1GNBnXV016304@bugzilla.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: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227068 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-16 18:11 EST ------- MUST: X - remove defines at start for name, version, release and fill in tags X rpmlint on .srpm gives no output W: jaxen unversioned-explicit-provides jaxen-bootstrap W: jaxen unversioned-explicit-obsoletes jaxen-bootstrap W: jaxen mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 44) X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 - requires packages not available yet - mock build failed X make sure lines are <= 80 characters - one comment goes over X remove %ghost - use %{_javadocdir}/* X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs - could not build X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs - still needs to be done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 23:29:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:29:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225750] Merge Review: file In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162329.l1GNTHLK016881@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225750 jpmahowald at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mbacovsk at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com 2007-02-16 18:29 EST ------- Needs fixing: - BuildRoot needs to be changed http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Good: + License OK + follows naming guidelines + *.la cleaned + %clean section + devel package rpmlint on x86_64: rpmlint on file-4.19-2.fc7.src.rpm W: file summary-ended-with-dot A utility for determining file types. E: file tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: file invalid-license distributable E: file non-utf8-spec-file file.spec W: file macro-in-%changelog _includedir W: file macro-in-%changelog _datadir W: file mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 42, tab: line 10) rpmlint on file-4.19-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: file summary-ended-with-dot A utility for determining file types. E: file tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: file invalid-license distributable E: file binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/file ['/usr/lib64'] rpmlint on file-debuginfo-4.19-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: file-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: file-debuginfo invalid-license distributable rpmlint on file-devel-4.19-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: file-devel tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: file-devel invalid-license distributable W: file-devel no-documentation rpmlint on file-libs-4.19-2.fc7.x86_64.rpm E: file-libs tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: file-libs invalid-license distributable E: file-libs library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libmagic.so.1.0.0 E: file-libs library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libmagic.so.1.0.0 without-ldconfig seems bogus, it is in the spec. Optional cleanup: + Change license to Distributable to shut rpmlint up + Change spec encoding to ASCII/UTF8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 23:30:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:30:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226489] Merge Review: tftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162330.l1GNUlea016923@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226489 mdehaan at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora_requires_release_note|fedora-review- |?, fedora-review?, fedora- | |cvs? | ------- Additional Comments From mdehaan at redhat.com 2007-02-16 18:30 EST ------- rpmlint *.src.rpm: W: tftp summary-ended-with-dot The client for the Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP). This should be easy to fix :) W: tftp no-url-tag This should be something like Url: http://foo.redhat.com at minimum or maybe you could point at the upstream home of tftp. W: tftp buildprereq-use tcp_wrappers-devel I'm not really familiar with BuildRequires vs BuildPreRequires here, though it seems like BuildRequires should work fine. W: tftp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 54, tab: line 55) This isn't hurting anything, though moving install up to the previous line would make this go away. Depends how much you care about rpmlint being whiney. --- Other things I looked over: service logic looks good. xinetd is reloaded on an uninstall or after newinstalls or upgrades. config is noreplaced (good), permissions, good, etc. One potential problem is that the BuildRoot doesn't contain version info (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 23:38:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:38:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226489] Merge Review: tftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162338.l1GNcJwq017157@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226489 mdehaan at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mdehaan at redhat.com |mbarabas at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 23:43:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:43:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162343.l1GNhpcc017318@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 mdehaan at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mdehaan at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 23:55:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:55:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226475] Merge Review: SysVinit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162355.l1GNt0LA017543@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: SysVinit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-16 18:54 EST ------- ok, that version looks good to me. Thanks for the rename. Everything else looks good, and I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Thanks again for the speedy fixes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 16 23:56:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:56:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702162356.l1GNuZ0W017593@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 ------- Additional Comments From mdehaan at redhat.com 2007-02-16 18:56 EST ------- Initial rpmlint scan: [root at mdehaan devel]# rpmlint *.src.rpm W: dhcp invalid-license distributable Given this is the nonstandard ISC license, ok. W: dhcp unversioned-explicit-obsoletes dhcpcd ok. E: dhcp configure-without-libdir-spec I'm not familiar enough with details to say whether or not this is ok. W: dhcp macro-in-%changelog d W: dhcp macro-in-%changelog preun W: dhcp macro-in-%changelog postun W: dhcp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 253) AFAIK, these shouldn't break anything but if they can be corrected it will make rpmlint happier. W: dhcp patch-not-applied Patch13: dhcp-3.0.5-xen-checksum.patch This patch is commented out in the spec file. I would suggest removing it from the list of patches? --- Spec file looks good at first glance, though I'll look over this in greater depth next week. Leaving as "?" to indicate review still in progress. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 00:26:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:26:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229098] New: Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library 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=229098 Summary: Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: seg at haxxed.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/secondlife/openjpeg.spec SRPM URL: http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/secondlife/openjpeg-1.1-1.src.rpm Description: The OpenJPEG library is an open-source JPEG 2000 codec written in C language. It has been developed in order to promote the use of JPEG 2000, the new still-image compression standard from the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG). This is required by the Second Life client. As such, it has some patches needed to make it all work. spot deserves credit for finding these. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 00:39:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:39:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222960] Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170039.l1H0d1ug018529@bugzilla.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: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222960 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-16 19:39 EST ------- fixed some minor stuff. New updated files: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/xenman.spec http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/xenman-0.6-4.fc6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 00:53:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:53:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170053.l1H0rmoK018810@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com |pvrabec at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-16 19:53 EST ------- Sorry for the delay in reviewing this. My build machine had issues... OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs See below - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 7 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Might include the COPYING file? 2. What is the upstream source for the sysklogd-1.4.1rh.tar.gz? This looks like a locally modified version of the upstream sysklogd-1.4.1.tar.gz. Why is this done instead of using the upstream source and applying patches to it? 3. Since this package has a logrotate file, shouldn't it 'Require: logrotate' ? 4. Our handy little scripty friend rpmlint says: a) W: sysklogd prereq-use fileutils /sbin/chkconfig /etc/init.d The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. b) W: sysklogd unversioned-explicit-provides syslog Is this needed for an old package? Or to smooth transition to something like syslog-ng? c) W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog postun W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog post W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog preun W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog preun W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog clean W: sysklogd macro-in-%changelog post Suggest: Change macros in changelog to use %% so rpm doesn't expand them. d) W: sysklogd mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 165, tab: line 59) Suggest: pick tabs or spaces, don't use both. e) E: sysklogd incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/syslog This is due to this package being called sysklogd, and the init script being called syslog. Can we rename this to sysklogd? Or would that end up breaking too much? As a side note, I have found myself doing 'service sysklogd restart' and then having to go look and see that it's called syslog. ;) f) W: sysklogd service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/syslog In this case we can ignore that, we want a syslog by default. ;) 5. You could add a dist tag, but this package appears dead upstream, so it's unlikely that it would need to be rebased much if any. 6. There are 7 outstanding bugs. You might look through them and see if any of them could be addressed while other items are being taken care of for this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 01:01:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:01:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170101.l1H11pMi018937@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 sgrubb at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From sgrubb at redhat.com 2007-02-16 20:01 EST ------- I built a new version of amtu to update the buildroot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 01:05:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:05:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170105.l1H15xcN019066@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-16 20:05 EST ------- Looks good, built and tested on rawhide. Marking Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 01:08:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:08:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170108.l1H180HV019131@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 mastahnke at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mastahnke at gmail.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 01:09:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:09:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170109.l1H197fU019172@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 mastahnke at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rnorwood at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 02:11:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:11:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170211.l1H2BWux020364@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-16 21:11 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > ... > b) > W: sysklogd unversioned-explicit-provides syslog > > Is this needed for an old package? Or to smooth transition to something like > syslog-ng? To smooth the transition to an alternative log daemon. More details in bug #172885. * Bug 172885: syslog-ng gets removed when sysklod is updated https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172885 jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 02:58:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:58:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226292] Merge Review: perl-XML-Twig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170258.l1H2wiXj021362@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-XML-Twig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226292 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-16 21:58 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148260) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148260&action=view) Specfile patch Robin, The patch includes the usual minor stuff (tabs -> spaces, find options order, ...) plus: * eliminates patch0 (it was already being skipped) * uses the Makefile.PL -y option jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 03:51:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:51:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227111] Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170351.l1H3pQ2N023901@bugzilla.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: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227111 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-16 22:51 EST ------- Added ant-nodeps as BR. Built successfully in mock, rpmlint on mock built rpms: [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/*rpm W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style W: qdox-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: qdox-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License style [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm qdox = 0:1.5-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm java jpackage-utils rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm qdox-javadoc = 0:1.5-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung at to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 spec file and srpm updated, available at the same location. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 04:00:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226290] Merge Review: perl-XML-SAX In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170400.l1H40Pis024350@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-XML-SAX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226290 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-16 23:00 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148262) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148262&action=view) Specfile patch Robin, The patch brings the specfile closer to the Perl template. jpo PS - I still need to give to a second look to the build requirements and requirements. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 04:12:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:12:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229103] 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=229103 Summary: Review Request:
- Product: Fedora Core Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: alexandre_laquerre at videotron.ca QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review at redhat.com,notting at redhat.com Spec URL: SRPM URL: Description: Hi, i wish i understood what i did wrong but everytime i start my yumex this information popups when i start the yumex and well i am still pretty new to this so im clueless to this problem. Component: yumex Version: 1.2.2 Summary: TB4426d5a1 ConfigParser.py:490:_read:ParsingError: File contains parsing errors: /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo [line 48]: 'x\n' Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/share/yumex/yumexmain.py", line 1108, in ? mainApp = YumexMainApplication() File "/usr/share/yumex/yumexmain.py", line 506, in __init__ self.repo = Repository() File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yumex/yumexUtils.py", line 1265, in __init__ self.update() File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yumex/yumexUtils.py", line 1348, in update self.build_section_dict() File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yumex/yumexUtils.py", line 1324, in build_section_dict tcfg.read( r ) File "/usr/lib/python2.4/ConfigParser.py", line 267, in read self._read(fp, filename) File "/usr/lib/python2.4/ConfigParser.py", line 490, in _read raise e ParsingError: File contains parsing errors: /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo [line 48]: 'x\n' Local variables in innermost frame: sectname: livna-source cursect: {'name': 'Livna for Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Source', 'failovermethod': 'priority', 'gpgkey': 'file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-livna', 'enabled': '0', 'baseurl': '\nhttp://rpm.livna.org/fedora/$releasever/SRPMS/\nhttp://livna.cat.pdx.edu/fedora/$releasever/SRPMS/\nhttp://wftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/livna/fedora/$releasever/SRPMS/\nhttp://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/rpm.livna.org/fedora/$releasever/SRPMS/\nhttp://mirror.atrpms.net/livna/fedora/$releasever/SRPMS/\nftp://mirrors.tummy.com/pub/rpm.livna.org/fedora/$releasever/SRPMS/', 'gpgcheck': '1', '__name__': 'livna-source'} e: File contains parsing errors: /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo [line 48]: 'x\n' fpname: /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo vi: = mo: None value: ftp://mirrors.tummy.com/pub/rpm.livna.org/fedora/$releasever/SRPMS/ optname: gpgcheck fp: lineno: 49 line: self: optval: 1 -- 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 Feb 17 04:22:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:22:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226288] Merge Review: perl-XML-NamespaceSupport In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170422.l1H4M9CB025783@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-XML-NamespaceSupport https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226288 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-16 23:22 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148264) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148264&action=view) Specfile patch Robin, The patch * adds the dist tag, * adds a new summary, * changes the order of the find options, * corrects one changelog entry, ... jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 04:29:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:29:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170429.l1H4TmWx026415@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 ------- Additional Comments From dcantrell at redhat.com 2007-02-16 23:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Initial rpmlint scan: > > [root at mdehaan devel]# rpmlint *.src.rpm > W: dhcp invalid-license distributable > > Given this is the nonstandard ISC license, ok. Would something else be better in the License: field than 'distributible'? > E: dhcp configure-without-libdir-spec > > I'm not familiar enough with details to say whether or not this is ok. The script called 'configure' in the source tree is not a standard GNU configure script that most people know. It's just named configure, but it's entirely different. Directory locations are specified in the site.conf file, which is populated at the beginning of the %build block. > W: dhcp macro-in-%changelog d > W: dhcp macro-in-%changelog preun > W: dhcp macro-in-%changelog postun > W: dhcp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 253) > > AFAIK, these shouldn't break anything but if they can be corrected it will make > rpmlint happier. I made them all %% in the changelog entries to fix the warnings. > W: dhcp patch-not-applied Patch13: dhcp-3.0.5-xen-checksum.patch > > This patch is commented out in the spec file. I would suggest removing it from > the list of patches? The Xen patch is an ongoing work-in-progress that was only recently disabled by me. I'd like to keep it in the RPM for now, but I'm not currently using it. > Spec file looks good at first glance, though I'll look over this in greater > depth next week. Leaving as "?" to indicate review still in progress. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 04:46:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:46:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170446.l1H4kXcD027664@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 proski at gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |proski at gnu.org ------- Additional Comments From proski at gnu.org 2007-02-16 23:46 EST ------- IceWM 1.2.30-12.fc6 depends on obsolete libraries glib 1.x, gtk+ 1.x and imlib 1.x. All this can be avoided if IceWM is compiled against Xpm library, which is not obsolete. This can be done by passing --with-xpm on the configure command line. That's how I have been compiling IceWM for many years, and it has always worked fine for me. I believe it would only make any difference if images other than Xpm are used in the themes, which in not the case for any theme I know. Alternatively, please consider icewm-1.3.0, which uses gtk+ 2.x and supports NET_WM_ICON. It's working just fine for me. I don't think stable/unstable really matters for extras, especially if the newer version is stable de facto and doesn't bring obsolete dependencies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 05:04:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:04:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229103] Review Request:
- In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170504.l1H54u0u028614@bugzilla.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:
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229103 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request:
- - |summary here> Product|Fedora Core |Fedora Extras Component|Package Review |Package Review CC|fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com | -- 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 Feb 17 06:34:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:34:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170634.l1H6YUSk030809@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-17 01:34 EST ------- Hmm. I've been playing with it for a while with all of the memory protection features of the targeted policy active; and I can't seem to reproduce the execmod denial you are seeing. Gianluca: What policy/settings and versions are you using? As eu-findtextrel says it doesn't need text relocations either, I'm very tempted to simply remove that chcon invocation entirely, as it doesn't appear to need it. Unfortunately, I can't fix/workaround a bug that I can't find. :o -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 06:47:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:47:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170647.l1H6lwdB031364@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 Fedora at FamilleCollet.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Fedora at FamilleCollet.com ------- Additional Comments From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com 2007-02-17 01:47 EST ------- Hi, some remarks and questions I saw php-pear-1.5.0 in rawhide. Provides should be update to version actualy provided by .phar : Provides: php-pear(Console_Getopt) = 1.2.1 Provides: php-pear(Archive_Tar) = 1.3.2 Provides: php-pear(Structures_Graph) = 1.0.2 patch0 could be remove as "pear makerm" is obsolete and remove (remplace by "pear make-rpm-spec" from PEAR_Command_Packaging) even if template.spec still present (no response from "find /usr/share/pear/ -name \*.php -exec grep "template.spec" {} \; -print") Big question : is it ok to provide a default pear.conf that point to non user writable directory, and to have 2 uses for the same directory : download_dir = /var/cache/php-pear cache_dir = /var/cache/php-pear This are not useful for most user (first by apache). Changing permissions on this directory is not a solution as files created in this are only 644. Regards -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 07:00:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:00:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170700.l1H70StE032154@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-17 02:00 EST ------- Well, for 1.1.10-1.fc7: * Scriptlets - Well, on my environ no one has /etc/ as the home directory. For the user tofmipd, I think the home directory should be %{_sysconfdir}/tmda or %{_sysconfdir}/tofmipd with the group of the directory set as tofmipd. * Requires ---------------------------------------------- Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun):/sbin/chkconfig Requires(pre): fedora-usermgmt Requires(postun):fedora-usermgmt ---------------------------------------------- - All these are not needed for main package. These are needed by -tofmipd package. - By the way, why do you use the mixed use of ---------------------------------------------- /sbin/service tofmipd stop &> /dev/null || : %{_initrddir}/tofmipd condrestart &> /dev/null || : ---------------------------------------------- (i.e. use of /sbin/service v.s. directly calling scripts under %{_initrddir} ) ? On Fedora, the use of /sbin/service seems to be recommended, and Requires(....): /sbin/service is needed. * Documentation - Check if the document "INSTALL" is needed. * Functionality: On FC7 i386, "service tofmipd start" fails 100% as following: ---------------------------------------------------------------- [root at localhost bin]# service tofmipd start Starting tofmipd: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/tmda-ofmipd", line 42, in from TMDA import Util File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/TMDA/Util.py", line 27, in import email File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/TMDA/pythonlib/email/__init__.py", line 118, in import email.mime ImportError: No module named mime [??] (The last word is Japanese, meaning "failed" in English) ---------------------------------------------------------------- It seems that python tries to search email.mime module from /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/TMDA/pythonlib/email/, because /email directory is found first. This is because /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/TMDA/pythonlib directory is inserted to the first place in sys.path. However email.mime is on /usr/lib/python2.5/email/mime and python seems to search any more... The following diff seems to work. ---------------------------------------------------------------- --- tmda-ofmipd.orig 2007-02-16 00:09:06.000000000 +0900 +++ tmda-ofmipd 2007-02-17 15:20:39.000000000 +0900 @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ # Prepend /usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages/TMDA/pythonlib sitedir = os.path.join(sys.prefix, 'lib', 'python'+sys.version[:3], 'site-packages', 'TMDA', 'pythonlib') - sys.path.insert(0, sitedir) + sys.path.append(sitedir) from TMDA import Util ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 07:14:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:14:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170714.l1H7ENki032506@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 Fedora at FamilleCollet.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Fedora at FamilleCollet.com, | |dmitry at butskoy.name ------- Additional Comments From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com 2007-02-17 02:14 EST ------- Extras provide a php-extras .src.rpm (dmitry at butskoy.name, adding it to Cc) which rebuild php only to provide php-mhash ans php-mcrypt. I think this extensions should be enable in main php package %package mhash Summary: A module for PHP applications that use Mhash. Group: Development/Languages BuildRequires: mhash-devel Requires: php-common = %{version}-%{release} %description mhash The php-mhash package is a dynamic shared object (DSO) for the Apache Web server that adds Mhash support to PHP. %package mcrypt Summary: A module for PHP applications that use Mcrypt. Group: Development/Languages BuildRequires: libmcrypt-devel Requires: php-common = %{version}-%{release} %description mcrypt The php-mcrypt package is a dynamic shared object (DSO) for the Apache Web server that adds Mcrypt support to PHP. And use --with-mhash=shared --with-mcrypt=shared -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 07:16:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:16:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 174289] LibHdate is a small C, C++ library for Hebrew calendar and dates, holidays, and reading sequence. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170716.l1H7GKlR032563@bugzilla.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: LibHdate is a small C,C++ library for Hebrew calendar and dates, holidays, and reading sequence. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174289 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-17 02:16 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 07:38:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:38:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170738.l1H7cHuk000435@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-17 02:38 EST ------- Zheng, would you check my spec/srpm? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 08:06:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:06:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170806.l1H86Ud8000851@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-17 03:06 EST ------- This(In reply to comment #24) > > Gianluca: What policy/settings and versions are you using? The problem was seen in a (supposedly up-to-date) FC5 box, running selinux-policy-2.3.7-2.fc5 [root at molzilla ~]# sestatus SELinux status: enabled SELinuxfs mount: /selinux Current mode: enforcing Mode from config file: enforcing Policy version: 21 Policy from config file: targeted > > As eu-findtextrel says it doesn't need text relocations either, I'm very tempted > to simply remove that chcon invocation entirely, as it doesn't appear to need it. +1. I could always open another BZ if I later find a problem with the published bits > > Unfortunately, I can't fix/workaround a bug that I can't find. :o sure :) thanks a lot for your help -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 08:10:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221906] Review Request: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170810.l1H8ATKv000967@bugzilla.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: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221906 bjohnson at symetrix.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjohnson at symetrix.com ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-17 03:10 EST ------- There is no init file for this server. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 08:17:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:17:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170817.l1H8HsW1001099@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-17 03:17 EST ------- Hi Tasaka, I've test your SRPM in FC6. Mock build was success, and it works under framebuffer. But I have some suggestion on the setuid excutable program. Setuid is generally a bad idea. This program needs setuid bit just to access /dev/fb(under framebuffer) or /dev/mem(under vga mode). So I recommend that we leave the policy to user : they can be set group of /dev/fb,/dev/mem properly by udev or just set sudo if they know what it means. B.T.W : This is Chinese New Year recently. Don't know how long Hu will be absent. But also Happy Chinese New Year to you all :D -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 09:18:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:18:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170918.l1H9Iawi004440@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-17 04:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #49) > IceWM 1.2.30-12.fc6 depends on obsolete libraries glib 1.x, gtk+ 1.x and imlib > 1.x. All this can be avoided if IceWM is compiled against Xpm library, which is > not obsolete. This can be done by passing --with-xpm on the configure command > line. That's how I have been compiling IceWM for many years, and it has always > worked fine for me. I believe it would only make any difference if images other > than Xpm are used in the themes, which in not the case for any theme I know. imlib is in fedora, and we need to handle png, jpeg at least for menu icons, so I don't think using xpm over imlib would be a good idea. And even if it is for themes it seems to me that imlib is superior; besides I guess (hope) that libxpm is in maintainance mode for many years now. > Alternatively, please consider icewm-1.3.0, which uses gtk+ 2.x and supports > NET_WM_ICON. It's working just fine for me. I don't think stable/unstable > really matters for extras, especially if the newer version is stable de facto > and doesn't bring obsolete dependencies. unstable/stable doesn't matter for fedora devel (rawhide) but matters for the other releases. And don't forget that what is in Fedora 6 could land in EPEL. In the case of icewm 1.2.30 versus 1.3.0 I had a look at the diff it is huge, although most seems to be simple changes. This could be a case where it could be a good idea to use 1.3.0, not for the new dependency, in my opinion, but to give more test coverage for the new icewm version. In my opinion this should left to the maintainer decision since both have advantages and inconvenients. Maybe it depends on how Gilboa is near from upstream. Another possibility would be to keep icewm-1.2.30 for older branches and use 1.3.0 in devel to have it for fedora 7. And a last possibility would be update it right after the fedora 7 release to have more time to test it during the whole fedora 8 devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 09:20:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:20:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170920.l1H9K7iC007279@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-17 04:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > * Scriptlets > - Well, on my environ no one has /etc/ as the home directory. > For the user tofmipd, I think the home directory should be > %{_sysconfdir}/tmda or %{_sysconfdir}/tofmipd with the group > of the directory set as tofmipd. Can we agree that the actual home directory of the daemon does not matter as long as: 1) The directory in not on a mounted filesystem (other than /) 2) It is not a privileged directory (since the program initially runs as root) With that in mind, I really do not want to create an empty directory to just have a home directory for the daemon. In my mind, it doens't really matter outside of that. I wanted /tmp but rpmlint complains for an entirely different reason. Seems to me, the next best choice is /etc or even /. At least for now, I've changed it to /. On my system, the following daemons (users) use / as their home directory: nobody, dbus, avahi, rpc, nscd, haldaemon > ---------------------------------------------- > Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig > Requires(preun):/sbin/chkconfig > Requires(pre): fedora-usermgmt > Requires(postun):fedora-usermgmt > ---------------------------------------------- > - All these are not needed for main package. These are needed > by -tofmipd package. Fixed that for next release. > - By the way, why do you use the mixed use of > ---------------------------------------------- > /sbin/service tofmipd stop &> /dev/null || : > %{_initrddir}/tofmipd condrestart &> /dev/null || : > ---------------------------------------------- > (i.e. use of /sbin/service v.s. directly calling > scripts under %{_initrddir} ) ? > On Fedora, the use of /sbin/service seems to be recommended, > and Requires(....): /sbin/service is needed. It was my mistake. I had intended to not use service at all as it provides no additional functionality and adds more requirements to the package. Unless you have a strong argument for it, I would rather not use service. > * Documentation > - Check if the document "INSTALL" is needed. It did have a few pointers to documentation, but one of them was wrong, so I choose to not install it. Everything in the file can be found elsewhere. > On FC7 i386, "service tofmipd start" fails 100% as following: > ImportError: No module named mime This was caused by a packaging error which I've fixed. I also added a note to the spec file explaining why the package contains pythonlib Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/tmda.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/tmda-1.1.10-2.fc6.src.rpm * Sat Feb 17 2007 Bernard Johnson 1.1.10-2 - consistent start/stop of daemon in scriptlets - move requirements created by scripts to daemon package that requires them - don't include the INSTALL file - it's information can be found elsewhere - %%{python_sitelib}/TMDA/pythonlib/email/mime files were improperly packaged - dependency on initscripts because of use of daemon function - note regarding tmda inclusion of pythonlib/email - change tofmipd user to / home directory -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 09:38:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:38:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170938.l1H9cHmG007954@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-17 04:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > W: dhcp unversioned-explicit-obsoletes dhcpcd > > ok. It would be better to obsolete only packages with a version <= latest packaged version of dhcpcd. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 09:42:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:42:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170942.l1H9gi0S008161@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-17 04:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Would something else be better in the License: field than 'distributible'? I guess that Distributable should shut rpmlint up. But it may be better to have a rpmlint warning than a meaningless license. So maybe 'ISC', or 'ISC License' could be right if it is something known. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 09:44:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226671] Merge Review: zlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702170944.l1H9i05g008209@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-17 04:43 EST ------- I also suggest adding the dist tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 10:05:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 05:05:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171005.l1HA54OD009003@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-17 05:05 EST ------- Note that the context change went into the Rawhide selinux-policy package earlier this week (selinux-policy-2.5.3-2.fc7). If the textrel_shlib_t context isn't needed, this change should be reverted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 10:21:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 05:21:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171021.l1HALkFs009884@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-17 05:21 EST ------- (Please close this bug when importing is done) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 11:24:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:24:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171124.l1HBOciO013733@bugzilla.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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-17 06:24 EST ------- This pacakge is missing Jabber Jingle voice support during the compilation: """"You have disabled Jabber Jingle voice support or you are missing required libraries required to compile it. Jingle is a new Jabber standard that define a signaling protocol via XMPP for peer-to-peer applications. Jingle audio is compatible with the Google Talk voice service. Required Jingle dependencies are listed on this page: http://wiki.kde.org/tiki-index.php?page=Kopete+Jabber+Jingle""""""" On the wiki page, its current status is """""Anyway, the support is experimental, and can lead to crash if something goes wrong. This is why it is not enabled by default in the stable release. Please note that the development is currently on hold."""""" Is this the reason why we aren't including this support? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 12:52:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:52:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171252.l1HCqN5k015956@bugzilla.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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-17 07:52 EST ------- I just want to pinpoint to two open bugs (if closed, we can assure "quality") concerning this package in FC: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228542 (easy fix, patch provided) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215350 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 13:23:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:23:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171323.l1HDNO7M016957@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 ------- Additional Comments From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com 2007-02-17 08:23 EST ------- i saw php-5.2.1 in rawhide... cool. Patch 9 is not applied ;) php 5.2.1 now shipped with memory_limit set to 128 Mb ? what about fedora RPM ? Does php-snmp must requires "net-snmp" as it already requires libnetsnmp.so.10 ? Regards -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 13:45:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:45:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171345.l1HDjCDX017539@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-17 08:45 EST ------- Well, (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > * Scriptlets > Seems to me, the next best choice is /etc or even /. At least for now, I've > changed it to /. Okay. Almost clean. For -2: * Version/Release specific dependency: - Usually the dependency against main package should be release specific. i.e. ------------------------------------------------------------- Requires: tmda = %{version}-%{release} ------------------------------------------------------------- * Cosmetic issue: consistent macro use - Well, you use both -------------------------------------------------------------- %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d %{_initrddir} -------------------------------------------------------------- Please unify them. * Again documentation: - Maybe the following documents are useful? -------------------------------------------------------------- NEWS (usually this should be included) -------------------------------------------------------------- * For -emacs package: - Well, I don't think it is useful to split only one file with 27K and to create another package with have no dependency essentially. And.. tmda.el is installed in main package as a documentation. IMO simply unifying .el file into main package and having both %{_datadir}/emacs and %{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp directories owned also by main package, removing emacs dependency is simpler. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 13:56:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:56:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171356.l1HDu7Wr018182@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-17 08:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17) > Hi Tasaka, I've test your SRPM in FC6. Mock build was success, and it works > under framebuffer. Thanks. > So I recommend that we leave the > policy to user : I leave this as how Hu thinks of this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 13:56:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:56:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171356.l1HDu14j018165@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-17 08:56 EST ------- Ehm, PHP 5.2.1 for Fedora ships "memory_limit = 32M", not more and not less. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 15:45:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:45:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171545.l1HFjxDG022149@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-17 10:45 EST ------- Forgot to check the following.. * python module dependency - /usr/bin/tmda-ofmipd contains: ------------------------------------------------- 346 if remoteauth['proto'] == 'ldap': 347 try: 348 import ldap 349 except ImportError: 350 raise ImportError, \ 351 'python-ldap (http://python-ldap.sf.net/) required.' -------------------------------------------------- Consider to add "Requires: python-ldap" - site-packages/TMDA/FilterParser.py contains: -------------------------------------------------- 724 def __search_cdb(self, pathname, keys, actions, source): 725 """ 726 Search DJB's constant databases; see . 727 """ 728 import cdb 729 cdb = cdb.init(pathname) 730 found_match = 0 -------------------------------------------------- Does this package need "python-cdb" (currently not available on Fedora)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 16:59:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 11:59:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229123] New: Review Request: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository 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=229123 Summary: Review Request: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/yum-arch.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/yum-arch-2.2.2-1.fc7.src.rpm Mock Log: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/yum-arch-build.log Description: Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository. This package only provides the old yum-arch command from yum-%{version} It should be used to generate repository informations for Fedora Core < 3 and RedHat Enterprise Linux < 4. --- rpmlint output E: yum-arch explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/mdcache.py 0644 ... I think this are OK (bug #226666) ? Note : has been successfully test to build repo for RHEL 2.1 and RHEL 3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 17:04:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:04:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171704.l1HH4h63024232@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-17 12:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #26) > Note that the context change went into the Rawhide selinux-policy package > earlier this week (selinux-policy-2.5.3-2.fc7). If the textrel_shlib_t context > isn't needed, this change should be reverted. > > I've posted a modification to bug 228628, asking that the change be reverted. I'm going to be gone most of today, so I'll post an updated spec/SRPM first thing tomorrow. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 17:57:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:57:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171757.l1HHviHL025535@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-17 12:57 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Consider to add "Requires: python-ldap" ldap authentication is optional. It is one of several types available. It is only required if you use it. Most people use file authentication or rpop/rimap authentication as they are the simplest to setup. > Does this package need "python-cdb" (currently not available > on Fedora)? cdb storage is optional. Most people will use dbm instead since it is built-in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 18:29:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:29:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227181] Review Request: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171829.l1HITm48026608@bugzilla.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: sonata - An elegant GTK+ client for the Music Player Daemon (MPD) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227181 mr.ecik at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-17 13:29 EST ------- There were certain problems on FC-6 building fixed now. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 18:37:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:37:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171837.l1HIbXoV026742@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-17 13:37 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > - Usually the dependency against main package should be release specific. > i.e. Duh, I knew that :-/ > * Cosmetic issue: consistent macro use > - Well, you use both > %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d > %{_initrddir} Good catch, I will fix that. > - Maybe the following documents are useful? > NEWS (usually this should be included) I will add this. > * For -emacs package: > - Well, I don't think it is useful to split only one file with 27K > and to create another package with have no dependency essentially. > And.. tmda.el is installed in main package as a documentation. > > IMO simply unifying .el file into main package and having both > %{_datadir}/emacs and %{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp directories owned > also by main package, removing emacs dependency is simpler. Isn't this contrary to the same argument being used against logrotate scripts now? The packaging guidelines (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-a5931a7372c4a00065713430984fa5875513e6d4), one file and directory ownership say: "The rule of thumb is that your package should own all of the directories it creates except those owned by packages which your package depends on." If I create a subpackage, it has two beneficial effects: 1) I don't break the rules and make exceptions for my package. 2) I don't drag in emacs dependencies to the main package. > And.. tmda.el is installed in main package as a documentation. And to address this specifically... Yes, it came from documentation, to add additional functionality as I did with print{cdb,dbm}. We always have the option to just include it in %docs and not pull it in like I do. What do you think about that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 19:24:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:24:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702171924.l1HJOhA7027918@bugzilla.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: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-17 14:24 EST ------- For some reason this package stopped showing up on my bugzilla front page; I have no idea why. Perhaps because the status went to MODIFIED instead of ASSIGNED? Anyway, this builds fine now and as you say has only the four rpmlint unversioned-explicit-provides warnings. The thing is, these Obsoletes/Provides pairs have been in cdrtools since FC-1. The need for these in order to provide a clean upgrade path has long since passed, and they should just go away. (Current policy is to keep such Obsoletes around for a maximum of three releases.) So given that, why not just remove them entirely? Some other issues: I note you don't use %{dist}. I generally recommend it because it makes it easy to maintain one specfile across multiple releases, but ultimately it's up to you. (Not a blocker.) The build root should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) The COPYING file gets into the wodim package, but the other packages which have essentially unrelated names don't get a copy. This seems bothersome to me, but I'm not sure if it's really an issue. I can't tell what cflags are in effect at build time. I don't see anything that sets them, and given that the debuginfo package is busted I'm assuming that something's not right. Review: * source files match upstream: 03a4e80718704e79b50a285b0aac928a3820c5b3c1df028478aa68fe884b7d0d cdrkit-1.1.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. O dist tag is not present. X build root is incorrect. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. ? License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (BR: perl is unnecessary). ? compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: genisoimage-1.1.2-1.x86_64.rpm cdrecord-mkisofs mkisofs = 9:2.01-10.1 genisoimage = 1.1.2-1 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl libz.so.1()(64bit) perl >= 4:5.8.1 perl(Cwd) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Path) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(List::Util) perl(strict) icedax-1.1.2-1.x86_64.rpm cdda2wav = 9:2.01-10.1 cdrecord-cdda2wav icedax = 1.1.2-1 = /bin/sh wodim-1.1.2-1.x86_64.rpm cdrecord = 9:2.01-10.1 dvdrecord = 0:0.1.5.1 wodim = 1.1.2-1 = libcap.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. -- 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 Feb 17 20:43:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:43:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225608] Merge Review: basesystem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702172043.l1HKh6Wn030016@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: basesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225608 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-17 15:43 EST ------- I suggest replacing BuildArchitectures with BuildArch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 20:44:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:44:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702172044.l1HKiYoj030141@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-17 15:44 EST ------- Let's try this here -- please branch for devel :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 20:59:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:59:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702172059.l1HKxj7J030425@bugzilla.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: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-17 15:59 EST ------- OK, this builds and installs cleanly for me on current rawhide, and rpmlint is quiet. Basically this looks good except for the desktop file, which just needs to be run through desktop-file-install. I'm not sure if the X-Red-Hat-Base category is problematic or not. Review: * source files match upstream: f7865c4ad2fd2a294f2d9e1a69f7fc4e52eab63e0c582c81676e15331e58534a sear-0.6.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: sear = 0.6.3-1.fc7 = /bin/sh libAtlas-0.6.so.1()(64bit) libAtlasCodecs-0.6.so.1()(64bit) libAtlasMessage-0.6.so.1()(64bit) libAtlasNet-0.6.so.1()(64bit) libAtlasObjects-0.6.so.1()(64bit) libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_image-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libSDL_mixer-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libcal3d.so.12()(64bit) liberis-1.3.so.13()(64bit) libguichan.so.0()(64bit) libguichan_opengl.so.0()(64bit) libguichan_sdl.so.0()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libmd3-0.2.so.1()(64bit) libmercator-0.2.so.4()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libsage.so.2()(64bit) libsigc-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libskstream-0.3.so.4()(64bit) libtiff.so.3()(64bit) libvarconf-1.0.so.6()(64bit) libwfmath-0.3.so.4()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) wfut * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I have not tested this package but I'll give it a runthrough if I can get rawhide installed at work. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. X desktop file is present, but needs to be installed using desktop-file-install. You'll also have to add BR: desktop-file-utils. Also, I'm not really sure about having X-Red-Hat-Base in the category list -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 21:44:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:44:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702172144.l1HLiXUm031452@bugzilla.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: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-17 16:44 EST ------- Updated package with the requested changes to the .desktop file handling and moved the desktop icon to /usr/share/pixmaps so that it will show up in the menu: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-0.6.3-2.src.rpm http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear.spec I finally fixed my 3D drivers and was able to test this on FC6-x86_64 against the Fedora cyphesis server. I haven't run into any problems yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 22:53:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:53:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225622] Merge Review: boost In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702172253.l1HMr7iK032686@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: boost https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225622 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-17 17:53 EST ------- The package should be adjusted to adhere to the fedora packaging guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines for the merge of fedora Core and fedora Extras. Issues: * the Source should lead to a real url * BuildRoot is not the preferred one * PreReq should be replaced by the appropriate Requires(post).... In the case of boost, an even better solution would be to use %post -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig * BuildRequires of libs shouldn't be necessary, they are brought in by the -devel, so the following should be removed: BuildRequires: python BuildRequires: bzip2-libs BuildRequires: zlib BuildRequires: libicu * there shouldn't be a mail sent for the test results in the default case. If you really want it, I think you should consider using a conditional. * Boost Software License seems to me to be very similar with the MIT license. Maybe MIT-like could be used? * in the %doc of the main package there should certainly be LICENSE_1_0.txt README, and many html files from the source directory, for example the faq, but also many others. * why don't you use bjam for installing? * in the doc subpackage the directory should be tagged with %doc. * what you do with soname is dubious. Why don't you use the upstream numbering? * the %optflags are not used during the build. * It is not very clear to me whether the devel package requires zlib-devel, bzip2-devel, and so on, or not. * there is a very strange Obsoletes: boost-doc <= 1.30.2 * the main package should certainly Provides: boost-python = %{version}-%{release} * rpmlint shows that - there are bad perms for static libs, they should be 0644 - some source files have bad perms, they shouldn't be executables - there are some scripts mixed with the headers, that were certainly used during build, they should be removed. and W: boost macro-in-%changelog check W: boost rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT E: boost no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install There are also many undefined-non-weak-symbol W: boost undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib/libboost_python.so.1.33.1 PyExc_ImportError for libboost_python, the python library should certainly be used during the link of that library. * the static libraries should certainly be moved to another subpackage like boost-static or boost-devel-static or something similar * mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir} is unuseful * add dots in %description * -doc should be in Group Documentation (although Group doesn't matter much) and -devel in Development/Libraries * it seems to me that -doc shouldn't require the main package. * you should keep the timestamps for doc and headers by using -p Suggestions: * add / in %files to directory, to show visually that these are directories and not files * use %defattr(-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr(-, root, root) * put the html doc in the -doc subbpackage docdir and not in the main package docdir, using %doc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 23:02:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:02:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702172302.l1HN2WDC000635@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 ------- Additional Comments From dcantrell at redhat.com 2007-02-17 18:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > > W: dhcp unversioned-explicit-obsoletes dhcpcd > > > > ok. > > It would be better to obsolete only packages with a version <= latest > packaged version of dhcpcd. The last version packaged was 1.3.22 in a rawhide tree many years ago. The last shipping version was 1.3.20 in RHEL 2.1. I went ahead and added <= 1.3.22 to the Obsoletes line. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 23:07:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:07:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702172307.l1HN73Rw000722@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 ------- Additional Comments From dcantrell at redhat.com 2007-02-17 18:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > Would something else be better in the License: field than 'distributible'? > > I guess that Distributable should shut rpmlint up. But it may be better > to have a rpmlint warning than a meaningless license. So maybe 'ISC', > or 'ISC License' could be right if it is something known. The common name is the ISC license, but that doesn't appear on www.opensource.org. The info is here: http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/dhcp/dhcp-copyright.php I would vote for saying 'ISC' as the license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 17 23:53:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:53:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702172353.l1HNrxjj001504@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-17 18:53 EST ------- Ok. I edited the spec to not perform the labeling and rebuilt for FC6: I can confirm the selinux problem is definetely not present here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 00:36:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:36:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180036.l1I0aajq002059@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-17 19:36 EST ------- So, spec file: * BuildRequires: - All BR must not be on the same line (max 76), vim is your friend... - There're some BR which're not necessary to be set ( such as "make", "autoconf", "gcc" "and automake"). - All others are not quite good, you must use -devel package (e.g libXext-devel). - xorg-x11-proto-devel is redundant as libX11-devel (which should be set instead of libX11) is require by libXinerama-devel. - libX11-devel is redundant as libXinerama-devel requires libX11-devel. - check for some other BR too. * Requires - You should really think about what x2vnc requires to be able to start and work correctly. - According to me, x2vnc doesn't work alone. - Check this. * %prep - the use of "cp -f x2vnc.man x2vnc.man.orig" is useless. You don't need to create an save file. - Also the use of "mv -f new_man x2vnc.man" is useless. - Just use : iconv -f iso-8859-5 -t utf-8 x2vnc.man > x2vnc.man instead of iconv -f iso-8859-5 -t utf-8 x2vnc.man > new_man * %build - sounds good. * %install - The use of "mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" is useless. Buildroot is already created by default. - You should add timestamp in your "make install" : INSTALL="install -p". * %changelog - please add a DOT to "Initial packaging" sentence. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 00:44:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:44:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180044.l1I0i7cA002187@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-17 19:44 EST ------- Doesn't sound good. Just change path in desktop entry to point to %{_datadir}/icons/ directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 03:05:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:05:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180305.l1I35mmQ004492@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 03:10:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:10:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180310.l1I3Ao1a004595@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-17 22:10 EST ------- Hey Jose - when you get a chance, please give the new perl-HTML-Tagset a looksee and approve it if it looks good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 04:29:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 23:29:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180429.l1I4TU7r006433@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-17 23:29 EST ------- Xavier, would you please show me where this is required or recommended? Just saying I need to do something isn't very good in my opinion. I want to know why it should be changed so that I understand it for next time. This will also help others reading the review to learn why one path is better than another. Better than that, if I understand why it's better in one place than the other I can most likely get it installed there upstream so I don't have to worry about doing it in the specfile. A quick grep of the specfiles in extras-development shows me there are 63 specs that install something to %{_datadir}/pixmaps and 39 installing to %{_datadir}/icons. It seems to me that unless there is a requirement to use one or the other, that this is just a matter of preference and it should not be a blocker. If you know differently or have good reason why I should install under %{_datadir}/icons, please enlighten me. I am always insterested in learning. No matter where it ends up going, since the file is one that's included with the upstream tarball and is already installed in %{_datadir}/%{name}/pixmaps, I don't see why a symlink isn't better than a copy of the file. Please explain why a symlink isn't any good to you. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 04:40:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 23:40:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221004] Review Request: jeta - Horde SSH Java Applet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180440.l1I4eJG2006891@bugzilla.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: jeta - Horde SSH Java Applet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221004 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-17 23:40 EST ------- So, first the usual rpmlint errors that we see with these apps: W: jeta conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/jeta/conf.xml W: jeta conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/jeta/prefs.php.dist Indeed, these should not be noreplace. E: jeta non-standard-uid /etc/horde/jeta/prefs.php apache E: jeta non-standard-gid /etc/horde/jeta/prefs.php apache E: jeta non-readable /etc/horde/jeta/prefs.php 0660 E: jeta non-standard-uid /etc/horde/jeta apache E: jeta non-standard-gid /etc/horde/jeta apache E: jeta non-standard-dir-perm /etc/horde/jeta 0770 E: jeta non-standard-uid /etc/horde/jeta/conf.xml apache E: jeta non-standard-gid /etc/horde/jeta/conf.xml apache E: jeta non-readable /etc/horde/jeta/conf.xml 0660 E: jeta non-standard-uid /etc/horde/jeta/prefs.php.dist apache E: jeta non-standard-gid /etc/horde/jeta/prefs.php.dist apache E: jeta non-readable /etc/horde/jeta/prefs.php.dist 0640 Ownerships and permissions are as necessary for this application. E: jeta htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/jeta/lib/.htaccess Indeed, this is an .htaccess file. I do now understand why rpmlint complains here: it is better to include such restrictions in the apache config file, and then apache can be set to "AllowOverride none", improving performance. Perhaps something to think about for future revisions. So everything's fine with this package. I had to enable it manually in registry.php, and I think the horde package should just enable it. I imagine upstream will change things in the next horde release now that jeta is officially released. * source files match upstream: 6abf801d70452f1186af1cd6415cde582dcb41b81fe30a1ef09db575cc46bd70 jeta-h3-1.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint output is OK. * final provides and requires are sane: jeta-1.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm config(jeta) = 1.0-1.fc7 jeta = 1.0-1.fc7 = config(jeta) = 1.0-1.fc7 horde >= 3 php >= 4.3.0 * %check is not present; manual testing shows that things work fine. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 05:01:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:01:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180501.l1I51fZC007792@bugzilla.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: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-18 00:01 EST ------- Looks good to me; the desktop file seems to be OK. I'm still not sure about the X-Red-Hat-Base category, but desktop-file-install doesn't complain about it. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 05:05:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:05:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180505.l1I55WQ5008035@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-18 00:05 EST ------- Could you elaborate on what you mean by "This is no longer needed"? If this package is no longer being submitted for inclusion, this ticket should be closed and the blocker changed to "FE-DEADREVIEW". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 05:20:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:20:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180520.l1I5K6vA008708@bugzilla.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: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+, fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-18 00:20 EST ------- Actually, I forgot to mention that I patched out the X-Red-Hat-Base category in the last package, and left it with only 'Category=Game;'. That should avoid any problems with the X-Red-Hat-Base category. Setting fedora-cvs flag because I think this is part of the new package branch request procedure. FC-6 sear wart at kobold.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 05:21:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:21:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180521.l1I5LEVx008781@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From marcel at meverhagen.nl 2007-02-18 00:21 EST ------- So the spec seems to work for the i386, but not for 64 bit. Has anyone got the wacomcpl to run on 64 bit ? (self compiled or from a rpm orso) It's hard to make it work on different distributions. There are a number of reasons: - The wacomcpl is using the non standard tk/tcl libs. - The @configure macro messes up the compilation on i386. The resulting libs with the ./configure creates different libs wich do work on i386 - The /dev/input/wacom symlink should be present or it will not work. (this is a bug, since the event3 is always present, but renaming the 60-wacom.rules to 49-wacom.rules does the trick, it's a ugly hack but it works !) - Another problem is that the wacomcpl-exec tool isn't compiled but it is a precompiled executable. However this seems to be work in progress. I don't know what development evirionment they use to compile it. But if this executable fails this should backported to the linuxwacom mailing list. This is something the linuxwacom developers should fix. - The possible tool wich can be used to create and maintain the xorg.conf file is work in progress. I recommend to wait with packinging until it has reached a stable state. (why isn't there a gui for the xorg.conf anyway ?) - I haven't got a clean system. Everything works but it a handicap when packaging things wich should work on other pc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 05:27:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:27:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226437] Merge Review: strace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180527.l1I5Rd7I009163@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: strace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226437 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |roland at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-18 00:27 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (BSD) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: ef40944118841803391d212cb64d3c5b strace-4.5.15.tar.bz2 ef40944118841803391d212cb64d3c5b strace-4.5.15.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: See below - Should build in mock. See below - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 3 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Might consider adding the COPYRIGHT file as a %doc. Additionally: Changelog CREDITS NEWS PORTING TODO might also be nice to have as doc files. 2. Please use the approved buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 3. If this package can avoid it, please don't use '%makeinstall'. Instead use 'make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install' instead. See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MakeInstall 4. Our pal rpmlint says: a) W: strace summary-ended-with-dot Tracks and displays system calls associated with a running process. Suggest: remove . at the end of the summary. b) W: strace macro-in-%changelog patch Suggest: change the "%patch" in the changelog to "%%patch" to make sure rpm doesn't expand it as a macro. 5. This package doesn't seem to compile under mock for i386/x86_64 in devel. The build ends in: net.c: In function 'printsock': net.c:957: error: field 'nl' has incomplete type make[1]: *** [net.o] Error 1 Can you duplicate this problem there? I ran the above checks against the fc6 version for now, but once it builds I will want to make a recheck for devel. 6. Only 3 outstanding bugs, and none of them seem directly related to packaging. You might want to take a look at them and see if any of them can be addressed while you are making the above changes. 7. Why the strace64_arches sections? It seems to contain ppc64, but I don't think thats a platform fedora currently builds for. 8. Minor: might add '%{?_smp_mflags}' to the make line to support faster builds on multi cpu machines. 9. Is there a reason to not ship the 'strace-graph' binary? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 05:35:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:35:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 169106] Review Request: fwrestart, safe firewall restarting script In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180535.l1I5ZfU8009574@bugzilla.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: fwrestart, safe firewall restarting script https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169106 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|fedora-extras- | |list at redhat.com | CC| |fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com CC|fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com | CC| |fedora-extras- | |list at redhat.com kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-18 00:35 EST ------- Setting fedora-cvs flag here to request EL-4 and EL-5 branches for this 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 Feb 18 05:38:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:38:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219104] Review Request: mussh - Multihost SSH wrapper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180538.l1I5c7Ub009676@bugzilla.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: mussh - Multihost SSH wrapper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219104 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-18 00:37 EST ------- Adding a fedora-cvs flag here to request EL-4 and EL-5 branches for this package. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 05:44:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:44:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180544.l1I5iPDQ009792@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-18 00:44 EST ------- OK, this builds fine and all that remains of the rpmlint output are the complaints about setuid binaries. So BuildRoot is good, rpmlint output is OK, headers and unversioned .so files are in a -devel subpackage, and everything else still looks good. APPROVED At this point I'm not sure if we're still ping-ponging the ticket assignments, so I'll leave this assigned to myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 05:46:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:46:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180897] Review Request: heartbeat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180546.l1I5k1lM009853@bugzilla.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: heartbeat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180897 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |list at redhat.com |review at redhat.com kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-18 00:45 EST ------- Hey Joost. Per your post on fedora-extras list: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-February/msg00100.html I would be happy to take over maintainership of this package (heartbeat). I am setting the fedora-cvs flag here to request a cvsadmin change the ownership in the owners.list file. Thanks for packaging this! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 06:26:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:26:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180626.l1I6QJhv010616@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-18 01:26 EST ------- Well, for -emacs subpackage, I respect your judgement. So please fix other issues I pointed out and reupload spec/srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 06:40:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:40:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226189] Merge Review: neon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180640.l1I6e8Bc010847@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: neon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226189 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-18 01:40 EST ------- Interestingly, once the package is installed, rpmlint produces the following additional warnings: W: neon unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libneon.so.25.0.5 /usr/lib64/libkrb5.so.3 W: neon unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libneon.so.25.0.5 /usr/lib64/libk5crypto.so.3 W: neon unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libneon.so.25.0.5 /lib64/libcom_err.so.2 W: neon unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libneon.so.25.0.5 /lib64/libresolv.so.2 W: neon unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libneon.so.25.0.5 /lib64/libdl.so.2 I will admit to not having a clue as to what might cause this or how to get rid of it, as I've never seen this warning from rpmlint before. I note there are a few Conflicts with an extremely old version of subversion. Even the subversion in FC1 was newer than the problem version, so there's really no reason for the Conflicts bits to be there these days. There seems to be a test suite and according to %changelog it was run at some point but doesn't seem to be run now. I added a %check section and got things to run until: ./uri-tests: error while loading shared libraries: libz.so.1: failed to map segment from shared object: Cannot allocate memory Not sure what's up there, so probably best not to try to run the test suite. The -devel package includes both a static library and a .la file. According to the guidelines, neither of these should be there except in exceptional circumstances. Review: * source files match upstream: b5513f88cb54c5f11e4c8348ee6c7ace9767b45c263c3a3ba8a5ce4e2b40a07a neon-0.25.5.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. O dist tag is not present (not required) * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible (LGPL) * License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged (latest in the 0.25 series) * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. ? rpmlint has complaints, but I'm not sure what they mean. * final provides and requires are sane: neon-0.25.5-6.x86_64.rpm libneon.so.25()(64bit) neon = 0.25.5-6 = /sbin/ldconfig libcom_err.so.2()(64bit) libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libexpat.so.0()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libk5crypto.so.3()(64bit) libkrb5.so.3()(64bit) libneon.so.25()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) neon-devel-0.25.5-6.x86_64.rpm neon-devel = 0.25.5-6 = /bin/sh expat-devel libneon.so.25()(64bit) neon = 0.25.5-6 openssl-devel pkgconfig zlib-devel * %check is not present; the included test suite doesn't actually run. * shared libraries present; ldconfig is called properly. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * a pkgconfig file is present and in the -devel package; pkgconfig is a dependency. X a .la file is present, as well as a static library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 06:40:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:40:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180640.l1I6eDQP010886@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-18 01:40 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/tmda.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/tmda-1.1.10-3.fc6.src.rpm * Sat Feb 17 2007 Bernard Johnson 1.1.10-3 - added NEWS to %%doc - macro cleanup - exact version dependency for subpackage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 06:57:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:57:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229123] Review Request: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180657.l1I6v0Nr011192@bugzilla.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: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229123 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-18 01:56 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 734cc68e26c2fd07629616ab597acac6 yum-2.2.2.tar.gz 734cc68e26c2fd07629616ab597acac6 yum-2.2.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. You should own the %{_datadir}/%{name}/ directory. 2. rpmlint says: a) E: yum-arch explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python This can be ignored. rpm can't find the needed dependency here, so adding a Requires should be ok. b) E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/callback.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/cli.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/i18n.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/output.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/pullheaders.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/repomd/mdErrors.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/repomd/mdUtils.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/repomd/packageObject.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/repomd/packageSack.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/repomd/repoMDObject.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/repomd/test.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/rpmUtils/arch.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/rpmUtils/__init__.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/rpmUtils/miscutils.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/rpmUtils/oldUtils.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/rpmUtils/transaction.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/rpmUtils/updates.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/serverStuff.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/archwork.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/comps.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/config.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/depsolve.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/Errors.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/failover.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/groups.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/__init__.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yummain.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/mdcache.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/packages.py 0644 E: yum-arch non-executable-script /usr/share/yum-arch/yum/repos.py 0644 These are all due to those files having a: #!/usr/bin/python -t at the top. Perhaps that could be stripped out, since they should never be executed directly... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 07:28:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 210776] Review Request: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180728.l1I7S98c011548@bugzilla.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: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210776 ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com 2007-02-18 02:28 EST ------- Nope. 1.2.3-1 doesn't build on x86_64. make[2]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/mono-tools-1.2.3/create-nati ve-map/src' /usr/bin/gmcs -d:TRACE -debug+ -out:/usr/lib/create-native-map/create-native-m ap.exe -target:exe -r:Mono.Posix.dll ./create-native-map.cs ./MapAttribute.cs ./create-native-map.cs(387,22): warning CS0169: The private method `MapUtils.Ge tPropertyValueAsBool(object, string)' is never used ./create-native-map.cs(1042,15): warning CS0169: The private method `HeaderFile Generator.WriteParameterDeclaration(System.Reflection.ParameterInfo)' is never used error CS0016: Could not write to file `/usr/lib/create-native-map/create-native -map.exe', cause: Could not find a part of the path "/usr/lib/create-native-map ". Compilation failed: 1 error(s), 2 warnings make[2]: *** [/usr/lib/create-native-map/create-native-map.exe] Error 1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 07:44:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:44:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229123] Review Request: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180744.l1I7iRK1011787@bugzilla.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: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229123 ------- Additional Comments From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com 2007-02-18 02:44 EST ------- Thanks for the review. Spec URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/yum-arch.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/yum-arch-2.2.2-2.fc7.src.rpm Mock Log: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/yum-arch-build.log * Sun Feb 18 2007 Remi Collet - 2.2.2-2 - from package review (#229123) own /usr/share/yum-arch del shellbang in libs rpmlint output (issue 2-a): E: yum-arch explicit-lib-dependency libxml2-python -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 09:14:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 04:14:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 210776] Review Request: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702180914.l1I9EPlR015648@bugzilla.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: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210776 ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2007-02-18 04:14 EST ------- Is that inside or outside of mock? It's building fine here (mock x86, outside x86_64) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 10:02:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 05:02:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181002.l1IA2rDQ011712@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-18 05:02 EST ------- Ooops. Missed one small item: Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/tmda.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/tmda-1.1.10-4.fc6.src.rpm * Sun Feb 18 2007 Bernard Johnson 1.1.10-4 - missed a %%{version}-%%{release} dependency, fixed it -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 10:27:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 05:27:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181027.l1IARG5u013025@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 bjohnson at symetrix.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |dbmail ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-18 05:27 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail-2.2.2-4.fc6.src.rpm * Sat Feb 17 2007 Bernard Johnson 2.2.2-4 - fix a few things in scriptlets for consistency - send error output from logrotate HUP to /dev/null - explicitly require initscripts since they all use the daemon function - use explicit %%{version}-%%{release} for provides -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 11:00:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 06:00:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221884] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181100.l1IB0bYx015144@bugzilla.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: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221884 bjohnson at symetrix.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |163776, 177841 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-18 06:00 EST ------- It appears that this bug was /somewhat/ fixed, but perhaps not in the way I expected. http://projects.sucs.org/projects/pybackpack/ticket/36 It *is* much faster now, but when I exclude a directory like ~/xbuild, it still walks the tree, even if I excluded that directory from the backup set. Why? What use is that if we are not going to backup those files? Also, if there are any unreadable files/directories, the backup will terminate. It should just continue, but with a warning that those files could not be backed up. Sun Feb 18 03:34:44 2007: Starting backup of 'home-terastation' to '/net/terastation/mnt/array1/backup/pybackpack' Sun Feb 18 03:34:44 2007: Analysing backup source Sun Feb 18 03:38:48 2007: Permissions/file missing problems on certain files: Directory: /home/bjohnson/.lightscribe Sun Feb 18 03:38:48 2007: Backup failed. Setting your FE-NEEDSPONSOR and FE-NEW blockers so the right people can find you ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 11:32:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 06:32:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221884] Review Request: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181132.l1IBW1gg016214@bugzilla.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: pyBackPack (GTK+ Python backup tool) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221884 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-18 06:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > it still walks the tree, even if I excluded that directory from the > backup set. This seemed to have the effect of making the progress slowly go up to 17%, then suddenly the backup was done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 11:34:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 06:34:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181134.l1IBYA9W016289@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs.unipr.it 2007-02-18 06:34 EST ------- Hi there, in one week we have made considerable progress. Now, with the source rpm http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-2.src.rpm which comes from http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl.spec http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/ppl-0.9.tar.gz http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-docfiles.patch I obtain the following: $ rpmlint -i /home/roberto/rpm/SRPMS/ppl-0.9-2.src.rpm $ rpmlint -i /home/roberto/rpm/RPMS/x86_64/ppl*.rpm W: ppl-gprolog-devel no-dependency-on ppl-gprolog W: ppl-swiprolog-devel no-dependency-on ppl-swiprolog W: ppl-yap-devel no-dependency-on ppl-yap I don't know if the three residual warnings are acceptable. The point is that the C/C++ model appears to be different from the one used in Prolog. Before I changed the names of the packages from `*' to `*-devel' I had lots of warnings concerning text files and static libraries in non-devel packages, but that files need to be there in order for the interfaces to be generally usable. Having both a non-devel and a devel package for these interfaces does not make sense from the user point of view. To summarize: - To make rpmlint happy it seems one should have both `*' to `*-devel', but then what to put in each of those? They should both installed to end up with something usable. - If we can afford living with an unhappy rpmlint, then should we name the packages `*' or `*-devel'? Coming back to the C/C++ world, there is the issue of where to put the static libraries. They are now in the ppl-devel package and ppl-pwl-devel packages. Should I move them to ppl-devel-static and ppl-pwl-devel-static or to ppl-static and ppl-pwl-static ? This would bring us to have 11 packages for PPL 0.9 and at least 13 for PPL 0.10. Many thanks again, Roberto -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 12:13:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:13:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181213.l1ICDhfN017420@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-18 07:13 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail-2.2.2-5.fc6.src.rpm * Sun Feb 18 2007 Bernard Johnson 2.2.2-5 - fix perms on man pages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 12:39:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:39:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225631] Merge Review: busybox In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181239.l1ICdXm3018017@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: busybox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225631 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-18 07:39 EST ------- * instead of mv the files to reverse the patch, I suggest patch -R -p1 < %{PATCH0} * Is DOLFS really used? I can't find it in the sources * the man page timestamp should be kept with -p * buildroot is not the preferred one * At least the selinux patch should be proposed upstream. Has it been done? * the .static patch and the .anaconda are unreadable, although they bring in important changes. I think there should be a comment explaining verbally what is done * the whole process should also be commented since it is not trivial. For example something along (maybe dispatched where things are done): # in %prep the .static patch is applied, to have a static busybox # built. The executable is kept as busybox-static. # then the .static patch is reverted and the .anaconda patch is # applied to generate the busybox especially tailored for anaconda. Suggestion: * / between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir} is not useful * use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) * %patch8 -b .gcc111 -p1 should certainly be %patch8 -b .gcc41 -p1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 12:59:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:59:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181259.l1ICxBOI019094@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-18 07:58 EST ------- Seems almost right to me, still 2 issues and some suggestions: * remove 'static library' from the -devel package description since there is no static library * the original soname don't follow the usual convention of a soname number with an integer, but I am not certain that it is right to modify it in fedora. It should better be changed upstream. What is the reasoning behind this change? Suggestions: * move chmod 644 bzlib.h chmod 644 bzip2.1 bzdiff.1 bzgrep.1 bzmore.1 to %prep, since these perms should be like that in the tarball * remove the / between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and macros, like %{_mandir}, %{_libdir}... since they allready have a leading / * for %patch6, maybe it could be %patch6 -p1 -b .bzip2recover * The changelog entries 'incorporate the next review feedback' are not particularly useful, I agree that for simple changes it is right, but here there was a complete reorganization of the build between 2 release, removal of static lib, this would have, in my opinion, deserved a more verbose changelog A remark: * I completely agree with the new organization of the spec with build in %build and install in %install, I would have asked for that the next round anyway ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 13:04:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181304.l1ID4Sxx019227@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-18 08:04 EST ------- I'm not absolutely sure, but doesn't rpm require bzip2 static files, to build itself as static one? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 13:05:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225633] Merge Review: bzip2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181305.l1ID5iP2019290@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bzip2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225633 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-18 08:05 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > * I completely agree with the new organization of the spec with build in > %build and install in %install, I would have asked for that the next round > anyway ;-) Seems that I confused reviews, this comment is irrelevant here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 13:11:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:11:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226487] Merge Review: texi2html In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181311.l1IDBjd7019498@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: texi2html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226487 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-18 08:11 EST ------- The release is on its way, so there shouldn't be a need for a cvs snapshot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 13:36:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:36:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 194375] Review Request: kdeutils: K Desktop Environment - Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181336.l1IDaf7F020308@bugzilla.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: kdeutils: K Desktop Environment - Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194375 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-18 08:36 EST ------- Reminder: There are two bugs opened: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220414 (patch provided) * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213541 (needinfo) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 13:46:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:46:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226671] Merge Review: zlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181346.l1IDkjUU020729@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-18 08:46 EST ------- Next the build should be done in build and the install in install. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 14:17:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:17:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225880] Merge Review: hal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181417.l1IEHqE6022904@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225880 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-18 09:17 EST ------- Issues: * use RPM_BUILD_ROOT or buildroot * BuildRequires: perl-XML-Parser should certainly be replaced by BuildRequires: perl(XML::Parser) * Missing Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig Requires(pre): /usr/sbin/useradd Requires(postun): gawk, grep, coreutils, /sbin/ldconfig I guessed that triggerpostun is associated with Requires(postun), maybe this is wrong. * There are no static libraries, the -devel %description should be updated * /etc/dbus-1/system.d/hal.conf should certainly be %config(noreplace) * Why is %doc commented out? And also %{_datadir}/doc/hal-%{version}/conf/* seems wrong to me but it's not completely obvious. * remove Application; X-Red-Hat-Base; from desktop file Categories remove X-Desktop-File-Install-Version=0.10 from desktop file * --vendor should be fedora and not redhat. There is a cryptic comment saying that it shouldn't change during release but I guess we are between releases... * shouldn't hal-info be put in another package? Suggestions: * replace %defattr(-,root,root) with %defattr(-,root,root,-) * replace cp -f %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/hal/fdi/policy/10osvendor/ with cp -p %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/hal/fdi/policy/10osvendor/ There is an issue of directory ownership for /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/, but it is not obvious how to solve it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 14:24:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:24:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181424.l1IEO3IT023097@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-18 09:23 EST ------- Okay. ----------------------------------------------- This package (tmda) is APPROVED by me. ----------------------------------------------- Please add this package to CVSSyncNeeded and wait until cvsadmin creates the initial directories for this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 15:26:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:26:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226192] Merge Review: net-snmp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181526.l1IFQoxg024557@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: net-snmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226192 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 15:39:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181539.l1IFdqwn024991@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-18 10:39 EST ------- Sorry for the omission. Package approved. jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 16:53:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:53:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181653.l1IGrwL7027583@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-18 11:53 EST ------- Well, I hope I can review this package first time till Tuesday (in Japan)... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 16:55:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:55:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181655.l1IGtJ4v027645@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-18 11:55 EST ------- No, by Tuesday.. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 17:56:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:56:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219972] Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181756.l1IHuVGi030675@bugzilla.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: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library Alias: poker-network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-18 12:56 EST ------- * Source still matches upstream * rpmlint warnings, all of which are safe to ignore: E: poker-server non-standard-uid /var/run/poker-network poker E: poker-server non-standard-uid /etc/poker-network/poker.server.xml poker E: poker-server non-standard-uid /var/log/poker-network poker - non-standard users are recommended for game servers. Safe to ignore. E: poker-server non-readable /etc/poker-network/poker.server.xml 0600 - Contains database password. Must be read-restricted. W: poker-server log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/poker-network - Application rotates its own log files All other MUSTFIX and SHOULD items fixed. I had to modify the selinux policy slightly to get it to work. Feel free to update the policy file before importing. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 17:57:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:57:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219972] Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181757.l1IHvgmQ030733@bugzilla.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: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library Alias: poker-network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-18 12:57 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148298) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148298&action=view) updated policy file Updated policy file to allow poker-bot to connect to the poker-web interface. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 17:58:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 12:58:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219972] Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181758.l1IHwM8d030762@bugzilla.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: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library Alias: poker-network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 18:21:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:21:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181821.l1IILXGH031478@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-18 13:21 EST ------- The poker2d binary gets installed in /usr/games. This isn't in the default path for users. It should be installed in /usr/bin instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 18:37:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:37:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220706] Review Request: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181837.l1IIboKi032063@bugzilla.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: linuxwacom-0.7.6_3-3.1.i386.rpm - with wacomcpl tool, man page https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220706 ------- Additional Comments From dzrudy at gmail.com 2007-02-18 13:37 EST ------- Marcel, I have just played with it and I built the drivers from source. After trying this the Xorg crashed with the same error as in the 2nd attachemnt. I also tried this with beta driver 0.7.7 but X still crashed. Then I have downgraded my glibc 2.5-10 from updates to 2.5-3 that comes with core and after that the drivers from both your rpm and source itself work ok, execept build problems as non root. Since I got the driver itself working now, I'll get back to you when I find a way to solve those rpath issues with rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 18:56:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:56:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226192] Merge Review: net-snmp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181856.l1IIu6Ux032485@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: net-snmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226192 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-18 13:56 EST ------- This, I think, is going to be a difficult one. First, this takes a while to build, even on my 8-way box. Is there some reason why none of the make calls use %{?smp_mflags} ? Now, loads upon loads of rpmlint warnings: rpmlint of SRPM: W: net-snmp strange-permission net-snmptrapd.init 0755 W: net-snmp strange-permission ucd5820stat 0755 W: net-snmp strange-permission net-snmpd.init 0755 W: net-snmp strange-permission net-snmp-config 0755 I wouldn't worry about these; rpmlint just doesn't like executable files in an srpm. W: net-snmp unversioned-explicit-obsoletes ucd-snmp W: net-snmp unversioned-explicit-obsoletes ucd-snmp-utils W: net-snmp unversioned-explicit-obsoletes ucd-snmp-devel I can't see any Fedora release where ucd-snmp was shipped. These should just go away. W: net-snmp rpm-buildroot-usage %build perl Makefile.PL -NET-SNMP-IN-SOURCE=true PREFIX=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_prefix} INSTALLDIRS=vendor -NET-SNMP-CONFIG="sh ../../net-snmp-config" rpmlint doesn't like to see the buildroot mentioned explicitly outside of %install, but in this case I think it's warranted. W: net-snmp mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 69, tab: line 161) It's good to be consistent with your indentation if possible, but this complaint is a bit odd in any case. rpmlint of RPMs: W: net-snmp incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.4-8 1:5.4-8.fc7 I guess rpmlint wants to see the epoch in the changelog, but this isn't required by the guidelines. E: net-snmp obsolete-not-provided ucd-snmp E: net-snmp-devel obsolete-not-provided ucd-snmp-devel E: net-snmp-utils obsolete-not-provided ucd-snmp-utils It's bad to obsolete a package without providing it. But this should go away anyway. E: net-snmp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/snmpd ['/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/CORE', '/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/sbin/snmptrapd ['/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/CORE', '/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-perl binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/auto/NetSNMP/TrapReceiver/TrapReceiver.so ['/usr/lib64', '/usr/lib64/perl5/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/CORE'] I've never seen the Perl module path in one of these warnings, and it seems really odd to me. Even if rpath was permissible, why would a compiled executable need an rpath including a Perl module directory? E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpset ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpusm ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/encode_keychange ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpdelta ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmptest ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpstatus ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpdf ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpwalk ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmptrap ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpbulkget ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpnetstat ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpget ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmptable ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpvacm ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmptranslate ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpgetnext ['/usr/lib64'] E: net-snmp-utils binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/snmpbulkwalk ['/usr/lib64'] These are at least the regular form of this error, but still need to be fixed. The extras buildsys wouldn't build this package due to these. E: net-snmp script-without-shebang /usr/share/snmp/mib2c.perl.conf E: net-snmp script-without-shebang /usr/share/snmp/snmp_perl.pl E: net-snmp script-without-shebang /usr/share/snmp/snmp_perl_trapd.pl E: net-snmp script-without-shebang /usr/share/snmp/mib2c.row.conf E: net-snmp-perl script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/NetSNMP/agent/Support.pm Why are these executable? If they're meant to be executed, they need to have shebang lines. E: net-snmp incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/snmpd rpmlint wants to see the logrotate file named after the package, but I think this is bogus in this case. W: net-snmp spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/net-snmp-5.4/ipf-mod.pl W: net-snmp spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/net-snmp-5.4/passtest W: net-snmp doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/net-snmp-5.4/ipf-mod.pl /usr/bin/perl Documentation should not be executable. E: net-snmp executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/snmptrapd E: net-snmp executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/snmpd Files in init.d don't generally need to be marked %config and certainly shouldn't be marked noreplace. W: net-snmp dangerous-command-in-%preun rm Shouldn't the file that's deleted be %ghost'ed instead? W: net-snmp-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/net-snmp-5.4/agent/helpers/table_row.c The source should definitely not be executable. W: net-snmp-devel summary-ended-with-dot The development environment for the NET-SNMP project. W: net-snmp-libs summary-ended-with-dot The NET-SNMP runtime libraries. W: net-snmp-perl summary-ended-with-dot The perl NET-SNMP module and the mib2c tool. W: net-snmp-utils summary-ended-with-dot Network management utilities using SNMP, from the NET-SNMP project. Trivial to fix. W: net-snmp-libs no-documentation This is OK. E: net-snmp-perl non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/x86_64-linux-thread-multi/NetSNMP/agent/Support.pm 0555 Should be mode 0755, unless there's some reason for it to be this way. W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmpagent.so.15.0.0 netsnmp_udp_parse_security W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmpagent.so.15.0.0 netsnmp_UnixDomain W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmpagent.so.15.0.0 netsnmp_udp6_parse_security W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmphelpers.so.15.0.0 snmp_free_var W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmphelpers.so.15.0.0 netsnmp_ncompare_netsnmp_index W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmphelpers.so.15.0.0 netsnmp_compare_netsnmp_index W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmptrapd.so.15.0.0 netsnmp_snmpTCPDomain W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmptrapd.so.15.0.0 dropauth W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmptrapd.so.15.0.0 SyslogTrap W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmpmibs.so.15.0.0 snmp_enableauthentrapsset W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmpmibs.so.15.0.0 usmNoPrivProtocol W: net-snmp-libs undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libnetsnmpmibs.so.15.0.0 usmNoAuthProtocol [etc...] There are several hundred of these. Generally we try to fix them if we can, because they can cause linkage errors or code using this library. W: net-snmp-libs unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libnetsnmpagent.so.15.0.0 /lib64/libcrypto.so.6 W: net-snmp-libs unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libnetsnmphelpers.so.15.0.0 /lib64/libcrypto.so.6 W: net-snmp-libs unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libnetsnmptrapd.so.15.0.0 /lib64/libcrypto.so.6 W: net-snmp-libs unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libnetsnmpmibs.so.15.0.0 /lib64/libcrypto.so.6 And a few other things found in review: I can't fetch the source from the Source0: URL; there is no FTP site at net-snmp.sourceforge.net. The Source0: URL should, I think, be http://dl.sourceforge.net/net-snmp/net-snmp-%{major_ver}.tar.gz BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) I think it's best to just use a license tag of "BSD", since even the "BSD-like" CMU license is really just BSD. The scriptlet dependencies are a bit odd; there is only Requires(pre): /sbin/chkconfig but there's no %pre scriptlet. You should use: Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/service Requires(preun): /bin/rm and if you're going to call chkconfig with a full path, you should do the same for service. There's a test suite; has anyone looked into running it at build time? The -devel package includes static libs, which should not generally be shipped in Fedora. Review: * source files match upstream: 2f43cd6f3c4066f8c17fdc47931a96c1fce808c9d1dd74bcb5a79d9d29d5f947 net-snmp-5.4.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. (Well, the spec is honestly a bit messy, but it's a messy package.) * dist tag is present. X build root is not correct. ? license field matches the actual license. Probably best to just say "BSD" here. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (You don't actually need to list perl, coreutils, grep, sed, or findutils.) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has many valid complaints. * final provides and requires seem sane: net-snmp-5.4-8.fc7.x86_64.rpm config(net-snmp) = 1:5.4-8.fc7 net-snmp = 1:5.4-8.fc7 = /bin/bash /bin/sh /sbin/chkconfig /usr/bin/perl config(net-snmp) = 1:5.4-8.fc7 libcrypt.so.1()(64bit) libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libnetsnmp.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmpagent.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmphelpers.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmpmibs.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmptrapd.so.15()(64bit) libperl.so()(64bit) libsensors.so.3()(64bit) libwrap.so.0()(64bit) net-snmp-devel-5.4-8.fc7.x86_64.rpm net-snmp-devel = 1:5.4-8.fc7 = /bin/sh beecrypt-devel elfutils-devel elfutils-libelf-devel libnetsnmp.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmpagent.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmphelpers.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmpmibs.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmptrapd.so.15()(64bit) libsnmp.so.15()(64bit) lm_sensors-devel net-snmp = 1:5.4 rpm-devel tcp_wrappers-devel net-snmp-libs-5.4-8.fc7.x86_64.rpm libnetsnmp.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmpagent.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmphelpers.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmpmibs.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmptrapd.so.15()(64bit) libsnmp.so.15()(64bit) net-snmp-libs = 1:5.4-8.fc7 = /sbin/ldconfig libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libnetsnmp.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmpagent.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmphelpers.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmpmibs.so.15()(64bit) libnetsnmptrapd.so.15()(64bit) libsnmp.so.15()(64bit) ? %check is not present but there seems to be a test suite. * shared libraries present; ldconfig is called properly. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate. (various executable source files and bits of documentation) X scriptlets present without proper dependencies. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. X static libraries are present -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:22:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:22:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 174289] LibHdate is a small C, C++ library for Hebrew calendar and dates, holidays, and reading sequence. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181922.l1IJMCUF001219@bugzilla.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: LibHdate is a small C,C++ library for Hebrew calendar and dates, holidays, and reading sequence. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174289 ------- Additional Comments From kaplanlior at gmail.com 2007-02-18 14:22 EST ------- pong (: Not forgotten, just delayed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:35:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181935.l1IJZrPJ002041@bugzilla.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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-18 14:35 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148300) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148300&action=view) split spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:39:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:39:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181939.l1IJd0K0002274@bugzilla.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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-18 14:38 EST ------- The above attachment contains an -extras package which includes More Utilities for the K Desktop Environment: * kcalc (scientific calculator); * kmilo * ksim (system information monitor); * klaptopdaemon (battery monitoring and management for laptops); as suggested by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFedoraKDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:43:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:43:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181943.l1IJh1Wk002599@bugzilla.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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #148300|0 |1 is obsolete| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:44:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:44:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 194375] Review Request: kdeutils: K Desktop Environment - Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181944.l1IJi8IF002695@bugzilla.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: kdeutils: K Desktop Environment - Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194375 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-18 14:44 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148301) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148301&action=view) split spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:44:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:44:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181944.l1IJiFCI002711@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-18 14:44 EST ------- Hi, A couple more items that could be addressed are: * find options order: -depth before -type Avoids the warning: "find: warning: you have specified the -depth option after a non-option argument -type, but options are not positional (-depth affects tests specified before it as well as those specified after it). Please specify options before other arguments." * check section: remove the '|| :' The characters '|| :' were only meaningful for rpm < 4.2 (they prevented a bash error as the %check scriptlet was only added in rpm 4.2) * perl build requirement Not necessary as the current build root includes the perl package (rpm-build requirment). jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:45:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:45:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195486] Review Request: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181945.l1IJjUYl002811@bugzilla.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: kdenetwork: K Desktop Environment - Network Applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-18 14:45 EST ------- Please discard c#14 and c#15 since it was intended for kdeutils and not to this bug. I apologize for any inconvenience. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:46:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:46:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226288] Merge Review: perl-XML-NamespaceSupport In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181946.l1IJkPtK002914@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-XML-NamespaceSupport https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226288 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jpo at di.uminho.pt Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:47:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:47:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 194375] Review Request: kdeutils: K Desktop Environment - Utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181947.l1IJl9JC002988@bugzilla.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: kdeutils: K Desktop Environment - Utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194375 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-18 14:46 EST ------- The above attachment contains an -extras package which includes More Utilities for the K Desktop Environment: * kcalc (scientific calculator); * kmilo * ksim (system information monitor); * klaptopdaemon (battery monitoring and management for laptops); as suggested by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFedoraKDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:47:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:47:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226292] Merge Review: perl-XML-Twig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181947.l1IJlU3W003012@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-XML-Twig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226292 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jpo at di.uminho.pt Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 19:51:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 14:51:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226290] Merge Review: perl-XML-SAX In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702181951.l1IJp925003223@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-XML-SAX https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226290 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jpo at di.uminho.pt Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 20:03:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:03:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228537] Review Request: perl-IO-Compress-Base - Base package for new perl-IO-Compress modules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182003.l1IK3oLo003585@bugzilla.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-IO-Compress-Base - Base package for new perl-IO-Compress modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228537 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jpo at di.uminho.pt Flag| |fedora-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 Feb 18 20:10:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:10:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182010.l1IKAaCP003819@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-18 15:10 EST ------- Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker2d.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker2d-1.0.35-2.src.rpm %changelog * Sun Feb 18 2007 Christohper Stone 1.0.35-2 - Move poker2d binary to %%{_bindir} - Update desktop file to correspond with new binary location -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 20:17:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:17:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229098] Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182017.l1IKHxUB003954@bugzilla.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: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229098 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |lxtnow at gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 20:40:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 15:40:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225671] Merge Review: curl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182040.l1IKeS0C004777@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO CC| |ruben at rubenkerkhof.com ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-18 15:40 EST ------- Hi Jindrich, Sorry about the late response, I missed your reply. Two questions: - Could you preserve timestamps when installing files with install -p? - Is the static library necessary for some other package, and if not, could you disable it? Thanks, Ruben -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 21:29:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:29:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228537] Review Request: perl-IO-Compress-Base - Base package for new perl-IO-Compress modules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182129.l1ILTAw5006833@bugzilla.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-IO-Compress-Base - Base package for new perl-IO-Compress modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228537 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|188265 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-18 16:28 EST ------- APPROVED MD5SUMS: 98971ee00adfe5c0f2d1e730066ba9c0 perl-IO-Compress-Base-2.003-1.src.rpm 7927ee59cc3c16609397be1d7d32ba01 IO-Compress-Base-2.003.tar.gz 0f5fd8ee458daa4792f509d2dce2ea53 perl-IO-Compress-Base.spec Sources: * IO-Compress-Base-2.003.tar.gz: MD5 digest verified against CPAN tarball (/authors/id/P/PM/PMQS/IO-Compress-Base-2.003.tar.gz) Good: * Package name follows standard * URL and Source0 urls are valid * License verified (README file and main POD page) * perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_xxx) present * perl vendor libs present * File permissions are sane * No active tickets in http://rt.cpan.org/Public/Dist/Display.html?Name=IO-Compress-Base Notes/Suggestions: * %files section replace %{perl_vendorlib}/* by P%{perl_vendorlib}/File/ %{perl_vendorlib}/IO/ and (maybe) %{_mandir}/man3/* by %{_mandir}/man3/*.3pm* * build requirements add the following comments #BuildRequires: perl(Test::Pod) #BuildRequires: perl(Test::NoWarnings) Both these modules are available in Extras, but I still don't know when the building system will be able to pull Extras packages. * Warning: IO::Compress::Base will be a perl 5.10 core module. -- 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 Feb 18 22:36:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:36:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226246] Merge Review: perl-Compress-Zlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182236.l1IMaiZu008338@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Compress-Zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226246 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jpo at di.uminho.pt BugsThisDependsOn| |228537 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-18 17:36 EST ------- Update to Compress::Zlib 2.00x ------------------------------ According to the requirements list of Compress::Zlib 2 the following modules will have to be packaged: * http://search.cpan.org/dist/IO-Compress-Base/ (review ticket #228537) * http://search.cpan.org/dist/IO-Compress-Zlib/ * http://search.cpan.org/dist/Compress-Raw-Zlib/ jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 22:36:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:36:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225672] Merge Review: cvs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182236.l1IMalRr008346@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cvs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225672 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-18 17:36 EST ------- /etc/profile.d/cvs.sh is 755 instead of 644, /etc/profile.d/cvs.csh is not existent, but maybe should exist as equivalent? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 22:37:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228537] Review Request: perl-IO-Compress-Base - Base package for new perl-IO-Compress modules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182237.l1IMb62H008386@bugzilla.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-IO-Compress-Base - Base package for new perl-IO-Compress modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228537 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |226246 nThis| | -- 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 Feb 18 22:38:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:38:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225974] Merge Review: krb5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182238.l1IMc8Tc008412@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: krb5 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225974 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-18 17:38 EST ------- /etc/profile.d/krb5-devel.{sh,csh} is 755, but should be 644. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 22:39:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:39:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225900] Merge Review: initscripts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182239.l1IMdMHp008468@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: initscripts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225900 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-18 17:39 EST ------- /etc/profile.d/lang.{sh,csh} is 755, but should be 644. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 22:40:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:40:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225983] Merge Review: less In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182240.l1IMewKq008547@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: less https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225983 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-18 17:40 EST ------- /etc/profile.d/less.{sh,csh} is 755, but should be 644: E: less executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/less.sh 0755 E: less world-writable /usr/share/doc/less-394/LICENSE 0666 E: less executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/less.csh 0755 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 22:42:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:42:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226526] Merge Review: vim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182242.l1IMgKLG008589@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226526 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-18 17:42 EST ------- /etc/profile.d/vim.{sh,csh} is 755, but should be 644: W: vim-enhanced conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/vim.csh W: vim-enhanced conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/profile.d/vim.sh E: vim-enhanced executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/vim.sh E: vim-enhanced executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/vim.sh 0755 E: vim-enhanced executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/profile.d/vim.csh E: vim-enhanced executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/vim.csh 0755 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 22:42:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:42:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222374] Review Request: paprefs - Management tool for PulseAudio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182242.l1IMgnMX008612@bugzilla.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: paprefs - Management tool for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222374 richard at hughsie.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |richard at hughsie.com ------- Additional Comments From richard at hughsie.com 2007-02-18 17:42 EST ------- This package is realy useful for configuring pulseaudio without editing config files. Would be good to get it in for F7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 22:43:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:43:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226539] Merge Review: which In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182243.l1IMhDYJ008633@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: which https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226539 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-18 17:43 EST ------- Isn't a which-2.csh script missing? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 23:00:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:00:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] New: Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings 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=229154 Summary: Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: daniil.ivanov at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/ SRPM URL: http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/konwert-1.8-7.src.rpm Description: Konwert is a charset converter similar to iconv. Available features include one-to-many conversions, context-dependent conversions, approximations of some unavailable characters. 'filterm' applies filter conversion to a terminal's I/O, to get on-the-fly charset conversion, and customized input methods. rpmlint -i -v konwert-1.8-7.src.rpm I: konwert checking This is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 18 23:04:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:04:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702182304.l1IN4wip009001@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From daniil.ivanov at gmail.com 2007-02-18 18:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #0) > Spec URL: http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/ > SRPM URL: http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/konwert-1.8-7.src.rpm > Description: Konwert is a charset converter similar to iconv. Available features > include one-to-many conversions, context-dependent conversions, > approximations of some unavailable characters. 'filterm' applies > filter conversion to a terminal's I/O, to get on-the-fly charset > conversion, and customized input methods. > > rpmlint -i -v konwert-1.8-7.src.rpm > I: konwert checking > > This is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor. Sorry, Spec URL: http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/konwert.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 00:25:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:25:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225880] Merge Review: hal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190025.l1J0PY1Z010372@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225880 ------- Additional Comments From davidz at redhat.com 2007-02-18 19:25 EST ------- In response to comment 3: I've fixed most of this except making /etc/dbus-1/system.d/hal.conf %config(noreplace). I've made it %config however as /etc/dbus-1/system.d/hal.conf isn't a configuration at all; however some developers like to tweak it around and as such their changes will be saved as .rpmsave. I've also cleaned up the %files sections of the spec file - please review if I broke anything and if you think the spec file looks good now. Thanks. This will appear in tomorrows Rawhide and I've uploaded the spec file and SRPM here http://people.redhat.com/davidz/hal.spec http://people.redhat.com/davidz/hal-0.5.9-0.git20070218.fc7.src.rpm Thanks for reviewing this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 01:01:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:01:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226193] Merge Review: net-tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190101.l1J11pbb011285@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: net-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226193 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 01:38:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:38:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190138.l1J1c7SC012174@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-18 20:38 EST ------- i'll make a full review within a day in waitting you find out a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 01:38:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:38:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190138.l1J1cVRH012194@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |lxtnow at gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 02:46:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:46:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217671] Review Request: libhangul - Hangul input library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190246.l1J2kI8i014283@bugzilla.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: libhangul - Hangul input library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217671 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-18 21:46 EST ------- Here is the review: = rpmlint gives: W: libhangul-devel no-documentation but I think this is probably ok + package naming is good + spec filename matches package name + meets packaging guidelines + license is LGPL + license in spec file is correct + COPYING file is included in %doc files - I attach a small patch to improve the English descriptions + spec file is legible + md5sum matches upstream tarball a32301e03a381917cb2ec836a43a9664 libhangul-0.0.4.tar.gz + builds on fc6 i386 + no build dependencies + no translations + has correct ldconfig scripts + owns all its directories + no duplicate files in filelists + has %defattr lines + has %clean + macro use is consistent + no large documentation + %doc files do not affect runtime + has devel subpackage + devel requires pkgconfig + lib*.so is in -devel + devel package requires main package with full nvr + removes .la file + only owns its own dirs -- 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 Mon Feb 19 02:57:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:57:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217671] Review Request: libhangul - Hangul input library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190257.l1J2vXvu014441@bugzilla.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: libhangul - Hangul input library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217671 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-18 21:57 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148309) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148309&action=view) libhangul.spec-2.patch Small patch to improve the descriptions. Sorry I should have included this in the first 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 bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 03:01:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:01:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229098] Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190301.l1J31PBZ014533@bugzilla.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: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229098 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-18 22:01 EST ------- from spec: * You should add timestamps INSTALL="install -p" to your make install. * replace openjpeg by it macros %{name} * you forgot to comment why patch0 was set. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 03:02:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229098] Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190302.l1J32f89014571@bugzilla.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: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229098 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-18 22:02 EST ------- rpmlint ouput error on -devel package: no-documentation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 03:46:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:46:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190346.l1J3kMD3015332@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 daniil.ivanov at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 03:46:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:46:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222374] Review Request: paprefs - Management tool for PulseAudio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190346.l1J3kihh015374@bugzilla.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: paprefs - Management tool for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222374 ------- Additional Comments From eric.moret at epita.fr 2007-02-18 22:46 EST ------- As soon as this package is reviewed and marked APPROVED I'll commit it in cvs extras. So far no reviewer has looked at it... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 03:50:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:50:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190350.l1J3o0EW015439@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 daniil.ivanov at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 04:10:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:10:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226193] Merge Review: net-tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190410.l1J4AtJL015902@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: net-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226193 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-18 23:10 EST ------- Not much from rpmlint: W: net-tools summary-ended-with-dot Basic networking tools. Trivial to fix W: net-tools no-url-tag W: net-tools-debuginfo no-url-tag Upstream seems mostly dead, but it still makes sense to list something. I suggest using http://www.tazenda.demon.co.uk/phil/net-tools/ E: net-tools broken-syntax-in-scriptlet-requires Requires(post,preun): chkconfig Unfortunately these have to be listed separately. Usually the dependency is on /sbin/chkconfig, and your scriptlets will also need a dependency on /sbin/service: Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/service Requires(postun): /sbin/service W: net-tools mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 206, tab: line 1) It's good to be consistent, but mainly this is romlint being overly picky. W: net-tools conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ethers W: net-tools conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/netplug/netplugd.conf These probably do need %config(noreplace) E: net-tools zero-length /etc/ethers Normally zero-length files aren't shipped, but in this case I suppose something needs to be installed there, and I don't think the file will accept comments. W: net-tools incoherent-init-script-name netplugd This seems bogus; rpmlint wants to see initscripts named after the package. The only other issue I saw: The netplug source should also be a full URL, since it has its own upstream: http://www.red-bean.com/~bos/netplug/netplug-%{npversion}.tar.bz2 Review: * source files match upstream: 15e7928c819c72108432b0d573110630ff6eb2f7be05e5a6dc1dc04fa05f63b1 netplug-1.2.9.tar.bz2 7ae4dd6d44d6715f18e10559ffd270511b6e55a8900ca54fbebafe0ae6cf7d7b net-tools-1.60.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (BR: libselinux is redundant because libselinux-devel requires it.) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has a few valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: config(net-tools) = 1.60-77.fc7 net-tools = 1.60-77.fc7 = /bin/sh chkconfig config(net-tools) = 1.60-77.fc7 libselinux.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. X scriptlets are OK, but there are dependency issues. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 04:18:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:18:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217671] Review Request: libhangul - Hangul input library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190418.l1J4IZ1K016051@bugzilla.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: libhangul - Hangul input library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217671 ------- Additional Comments From tagoh at redhat.com 2007-02-18 23:18 EST ------- Ok, Take 3: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/tagoh/libhangul/libhangul.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/tagoh/libhangul/libhangul-0.0.4-2.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 Mon Feb 19 04:25:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:25:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226486] Merge Review: tetex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190425.l1J4Pal5016169@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tetex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226486 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-18 23:25 EST ------- Is there actually a need to get this reviewed, given that it's being replaced at some point by TeXlive? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 04:40:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:40:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229123] Review Request: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190440.l1J4evCa016432@bugzilla.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: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229123 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-18 23:40 EST ------- ok. I see no further blockers, so this package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this review request NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 04:50:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:50:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190450.l1J4ocho016606@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-18 23:50 EST ------- Thanks for your detailed answers. (In reply to comment #11) > When you look at description in spec file and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_script you will see that using this fonts > you can write in Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi. Yes, but looking at the above page and other places it seems common practice to call the script "Tibetan" and so it still seems reasonable to me to call the package fonts-tibetan. > Then my propose is to pack TMU and > Jomolhari together and name it fonts-tibetan-dzongkha(-ladakhi)? fonts-tibetan-dzongkha(-ladakhi) seems too long. Most references to the script(s) seem to call it Tibetan, so my feeling as an outsider is that it is ok to just call it fonts-tibetan, but if there is strong evidence to the contrary we should look at that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 05:23:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:23:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217671] Review Request: libhangul - Hangul input library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190523.l1J5NqMb017266@bugzilla.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: libhangul - Hangul input library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217671 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-19 00:23 EST ------- Thanks, srpm looks good now. Package is 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 Mon Feb 19 05:41:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:41:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190541.l1J5fg3v017624@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-19 00:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > No, by Tuesday.. Thanks for your dedication in getting packages reviewed. It's really appreciated. Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail-2.2.2-5.fc6.src.rpm * Sun Feb 18 2007 Bernard Johnson 2.2.2-6 - remove bogus require for main package on mysql - virtual depend with exact %%{version}-%%{release} - remove extra mysql-devel BR - update description to include sqlite if built with sqlite - for mysql, 4.1.3 is required, not just 4.1 - add requires for vixie-cron - move database specific docs to database subpackages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 05:43:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 00:43:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226190] Merge Review: netatalk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190543.l1J5h0LF017668@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: netatalk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226190 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 08:20:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 03:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226193] Merge Review: net-tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190820.l1J8Ks24021054@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: net-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226193 rvokal at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From rvokal at redhat.com 2007-02-19 03:20 EST ------- ad net-tools zero-length /etc/ethers - I've added a kind of default comment. All other issue are fixed in net-tools-1.60-78 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 08:28:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 03:28:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 211336] Review Request: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190828.l1J8SCHj021345@bugzilla.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: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets Alias: adeskets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211336 luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(luya_tfz at thefinalz| |one.com) | ------- Additional Comments From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com 2007-02-19 03:28 EST ------- http://www.thefinalzone.com/RPMS/adeskets.spec http://www.thefinalzone.com/RPMS/adeskets-0.6.1-4.src.rpm Unfortunately, I am unable to remove /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/perllocal.pod I need to see what mistake I made so I can fix them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 08:33:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 03:33:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 211336] Review Request: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702190833.l1J8X7bA021578@bugzilla.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: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets Alias: adeskets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211336 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-19 03:33 EST ------- Well, ----------------------------------------------------- Not Found The requested URL /RPMS/adeskets-0.6.1-4.src.rpm was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. ----------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 10:27:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:27:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 211336] Review Request: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191027.l1JARKUu029056@bugzilla.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: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets Alias: adeskets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211336 ------- Additional Comments From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com 2007-02-19 05:27 EST ------- A typo from my part http://www.thefinalzone.com/RPMS/adesklets-0.6.1-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 10:34:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:34:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 215659] Review Request: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191034.l1JAYlqM029580@bugzilla.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: python-daap - A DAAP client implemented in Python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215659 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-19 05:34 EST ------- rpmlint output on the source rpm : W: python-daap mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 15) rpmlint output on the binary rpm is ok. The spec file and resulting packages seem to comply with all MUST review items. The only part which is quite vague is the LICENSE. The author has made a statement about relicensing under the LGPL, but : 1) The source tarball for 0.5 still doesn't contain the LICENSE file 2) The PKG-INFO file still contains "License: UNKNOWN" 3) The sources contain two files (md5c.c and md5.h) which were taken from the Python sources and have their own "RSA Data Security, Inc." license. Points 1) and 2) could be easily dealt with by sending a quick patch to the author. The most surprizing part is that the LICENSE file is actually in the svn trunk, and has been for a while, but was skipped when making the 0.5 release it seems. Point 3) is a bit trickier, as I have no idea if that license is actually LGPL compatible or not (I would think it is, though). If it isn't, then we have a problem. If it is, then simply adding a note about "Parts of the software are derived from the RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm" + possibly a copy of the RSA terms should be enough. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 10:40:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:40:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226192] Merge Review: net-snmp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191040.l1JAeshu030069@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: net-snmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226192 ------- Additional Comments From rvokal at redhat.com 2007-02-19 05:40 EST ------- Hi, thanks for the review. This will be a tricky one :) Here are two comments I have - perl scripts in doc are examples, I guess having them executable makes sense - the test suit fails on s390* and I don't have a fix for that - ucd-snmp is used in RHEL2.1 - but I'm willing to remove that cos ucd-snmp is really ancient as well as 2.1 I have no idea how to deal with the rpath issue and also I have to check why the library in devel is static. Patches welcome. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 11:10:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225671] Merge Review: curl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191110.l1JBATQQ031456@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 jnovy at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(ruben at rubenkerkhof | |.com) ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-19 06:10 EST ------- Hi Ruben, (In reply to comment #3) > Two questions: > - Could you preserve timestamps when installing files with install -p? what install -p do you have in mind? I don't see any in the spec file. Do you mean those in Makefiles? > - Is the static library necessary for some other package, and if not, could you disable it? Not sure whether it is needed or not, but definitely we should get rid of it. The question is whether to move it to a -static subpackage or to remove it completely. What's your optionon on it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 11:18:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:18:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226486] Merge Review: tetex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191118.l1JBIZ8G031749@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tetex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226486 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-19 06:18 EST ------- Hi Jason, please do review teTeX as well even though the spec is quite messy. I'm going to submit the review requests for TeXLive 2007 release candidate today (texlive-errata and texlive-texmf tree, the texlive binary packages still need some polishing), so you can have a look on the TeXLive packaging as well if you are interested. Jindrich -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 11:18:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:18:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222960] Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191118.l1JBIPgk031742@bugzilla.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: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222960 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-19 06:18 EST ------- Just built (sucessfully) in mock and I have noticed that the docs are packaged twice: in /usr/share/xenman/doc and in /usr/share/doc/xenman-0.6 Also, I do not think that the content of /usr/share/xenman/patches is worth shipping, because FC5, FC6 and devel all have python-paramiko>=1.6.4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 11:30:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:30:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191130.l1JBULtn032251@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-19 06:30 EST ------- I got rid of math recipes in the weekend, i re-wrote tham. Discuss now the merge of code into CVS, (i inquiry author what license tag want he to see for these pieces, thats the only issue now) Tomorrow i will re-join ogdi+gdal+grass with full force :-), today i have to run random places to manage personal stuff. ogdi - will contain a singe patch wich solve 64bit issue+gmath.c issue,basicaly as a difference between CVS and 3.1.6 version. Soon 3.2.0beta will come and patch will be dropped, but maintainer insist to wait with CVS until some bugs will be found. gdal - still have r-path problem (i will remove it, and retest within mock). grass - pretty unreviewed, if have the time take a look into it, i am sure there you will find lists of issues, its pretty _big_ beast, but it will be _great_ to see it in -extras -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 11:35:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:35:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225983] Merge Review: less In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191135.l1JBZIXK032400@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: less https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225983 ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-19 06:34 EST ------- Thanks for your comment. /etc/profile.d/less.{sh,csh} has the right permissions - rpmlint should not display it as an error, the only problem was /usr/share/doc/less-394/LICENSE permissions which are fixed in less-394-8.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 11:40:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:40:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191140.l1JBek4G032645@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 karsten at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-19 06:40 EST ------- fixed in -5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 11:56:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:56:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225298] Merge Review: automake14 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191156.l1JBubDA000659@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake14 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225298 karsten at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-19 06:56 EST ------- verified that it builds fine in mock without the autoconf BR, dropped perl requirement in -15 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 12:11:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:11:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226189] Merge Review: neon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191211.l1JCBHlC001137@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: neon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226189 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-19 07:11 EST ------- Thanks for the review. - the test suite will run but reserves a fixed port so cannot be run reliably during build (multiple simultaneous builds on a single host will not necessarily work); (for x86_64 it fails in 0.25 due to a restrictive ulimit -v; 'sed -i /ulimit/d' test/run.sh' will fix that) - the .la file is part of the defined interface so will not be dropped. (it's used by third-party apps via "neon-config --la-file" - the static archive is used by the static build of RPM (which links against neon), so is required - the rpmlint unused-direct-dep warnings can't be easily fixed (properly, anyway) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 12:15:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229180] New: Review Request: TeXLive 2007 - the TeX formatting system, noarch part 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=229180 Summary: Review Request: TeXLive 2007 - the TeX formatting system, noarch part Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jnovy at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/texlive/texlive-texmf.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/texlive/texlive-texmf-2007-0.1.20070212rc.src.rpm Description: This is the largest part of TeXLive 2007 formatting system, containing noarch parts -> the texmf tree. For more information: Successfull completion of this review and addition of this package is a blocker of TeXLive inclusion in F7: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureTexLive -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 12:18:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:18:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226671] Merge Review: zlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191218.l1JCIGqu001457@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-19 07:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) Thanks for your comment. > * the source is not one of those appearing on the home page. Moreover > you could use the tar.bz2. fixed source tag > * Is Prefix: %{_prefix} needed? I prefer to leave prefix flag set there. > * BuildRoot is not the preferred one changed > * The comment in %build is misleading. It should better be something like > # prepare Makefile for the static lib changed > and in %install there could be a comment saying > # the first make triggers compilation of the object files, linking of the > # shared library and installs the library > # The second make triggers the linking of the static library and > # its installation this comment is not necessary > * I think it would be better to have, in -devel > http://www.zlib.net/manual.html > and > http://www.zlib.net/zlib_how.html These documents are not part of upstream tarball > * it seems to me that FAQ should be in %doc, and ChangeLog should be > in the main package changed and added > * -devel should > Requires: zlib = %{version}-%{release} changed > * It seems to me that there should be a make clean between the 2 > make -f invocations, to trigger recompilation with the flags without -fPIC > * I'll attach a patch to simplify the build and install, and use more > macros. fixed > * zutil.h seems to be an internal header that should no be shipped removed > * seems like that spec is not in utf8, certainly because of Glomsr?d fixed > * remove the dots at the end of the Summaries fixed > Change %defattr(-,root,root) to %defattr(-,root,root,-) changed Fixed version is zlib-1.2.3-5.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 12:27:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:27:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222960] Review Request: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191227.l1JCRLko001871@bugzilla.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: XenMan - Graphical management tool for Xen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222960 mr.ecik at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mr.ecik at gmail.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-19 07:27 EST ------- Unassigning this bug due to my lack of time... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 12:35:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:35:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229182] New: Review Request: TeXLive 2007 - errata for the noarch part of the TeX formatting system 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=229182 Summary: Review Request: TeXLive 2007 - errata for the noarch part of the TeX formatting system Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jnovy at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/texlive/texlive-texmf-errata.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/texlive/texlive-texmf-errata-2007-0.1.20070212rc.src.rpm Description: This is the errata package for the TeXLive 2007 formatting system. The purpose of this package is to support updates to huge texmf tree without a need to download all the texmf tree again, but to ship only the fixed parts. texlive-errata puts updated files into a seperate texmf tree which is searched prior to the main tree so there are no conflicts between texlive-errata and texlive-texmf packages. Successfull completion of this review and addition of this package is a blocker of TeXLive inclusion in F7: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureTexLive -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 12:36:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:36:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229180] Review Request: TeXLive 2007 - the TeX formatting system, noarch part In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191236.l1JCaaoK002202@bugzilla.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: TeXLive 2007 - the TeX formatting system, noarch part https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 ------- Additional Comments From ndbecker2 at gmail.com 2007-02-19 07:36 EST ------- I'd like to test texlive packages. You say this is just 1 part of the whole package? Any ETA for the remainder of the packages? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 13:00:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:00:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191300.l1JD0iam003831@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 ------- Additional Comments From dmitry at butskoy.name 2007-02-19 08:00 EST ------- for comment #8 : > which rebuild php only to provide php-mhash ans php-mcrypt. Not only, also php-dbase and php-tidy. I.e., add all 4 ones, and I will drop an extra hackish package at all :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 13:29:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:29:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191329.l1JDT0Il005519@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-19 08:28 EST ------- Bernard, now gdome2 maintainer is you. Would you rebuild gdome2 with release number incremented and with adding some fixes if you want and rebuild gdome2 for FE-devel? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 13:35:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:35:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191335.l1JDZRVO006021@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|Reopened | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-19 08:35 EST ------- Xavier, please review this request if you like (and mark this as FE-REVIEW) As this request is sponsor needed issue and you are not a sponsor, a sponsor must review this finally. If the time comes, I will do a final check and do some needed procedure for sponsorship issue as one of the sponsors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 13:50:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:50:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191350.l1JDoAiC006981@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-19 08:50 EST ------- Requires(...): fixed No, doesn't make sense to require coreutils so I haven't added that. Versioning: fixed Depending on itself: Er.. can you be more specific? Which line are you looking at? Huge amount of patches: there are just 13 patches, and work is being done upstream to integrate several of them. Others will never get upstream. FHS macros: this was addressed in comment #2. install -p: fixed sed instead of perl: no need to change this bzip2 comment: added rm -f: fixed ||: : fixed conditional bzip2: fixed bzip2 moved to %install: fixed The .bz2 in %pre: this is for legacy upgrades. The .gz in %preun/%post: fixed %defattr: fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 14:08:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:08:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225672] Merge Review: cvs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191408.l1JE8NDA008691@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cvs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225672 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-19 09:08 EST ------- Fixed in cvs-1.11.22-9.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 14:21:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:21:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228488] Review Request: hunspell-ms - Malay hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191421.l1JELZmY009984@bugzilla.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: hunspell-ms - Malay hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228488 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-19 09:21 EST ------- 27805 (hunspell-ms): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 14:37:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:37:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191437.l1JEb01V010768@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 ------- Additional Comments From denis at poolshark.org 2007-02-19 09:36 EST ------- What is the rationale for building against the version of cdrtools that's part of the tarball ? That version if particularly old, and I left it there mainly for non-linux builds... I guess we should also merge this package with gcdmaster in Extras, once the build system merge is complete. other issues: - libvorbis-devel Require is not necessary, it's only used if you build gcdmaster - xcdrdao.desktop source is unused - make invocation should use %{?_smp_mflags} - the --with-pccts* configure options are unnecessary - use make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead of %makeinstall -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 14:47:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:47:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 211336] Review Request: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191447.l1JElSQe011505@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: adesklets - A simple architecture for desktop applets Alias: adeskets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211336 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-19 09:47 EST ------- Umm... 0.6.1-4 still has a lot of issues to be fixed I only checked packaging issues and I have not installed this yet. * The following issue: > Unfortunately, I am unable to remove > /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/perllocal.pod > I need to see what mistake I made so I can fix them. - First of all, the place you wrote "rm -rf" is wrong. (Why is this before "make install")? - And check the macro {perl_vendorlib} actually returns. ------------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1 at localhost adesklets]$ rpm --eval %perl_vendorlib /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 ------------------------------------------------------------- * BuildRequires - desktop-file-install requires "desktop-file-utils" for BuildRequires. - Still X related packages are missing from BuildRequires. ------------------------------------------------------------- checking for fontconfig... no <- HERE configure: WARNING: ----------------------------------------------------- `fontconfig' was not found on your system. Although `adesklets' will work anyway system-wide automatic font detection will not occur: it is therefore quite possible that only the default font provided with the package will display. ----------------------------------------------------- checking for fork... yes checking for X... no <- HERE ------------------------------------------------------------- and ----------------------------------------------------- you choosed to perform an `X Window less' build - which means you will eventually end up with a strictly command line program free of all dependencies on xlib. If it is not what you intended please reconfigure. For this to work you do need first to configure your Imlib2 incantation for not using X Window itself. ----------------------------------------------------- * Macros - The following macros are not defined. ----------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1 at localhost i386]$ rpm --eval %_install_info %_install_info ----------------------------------------------------- - And check "Texinfo" section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets * Requirement for info package is missing * post does not the value 0 as $1 * This is non-safe on non-docs install. http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00017.html * Perl temp file ----------------------------------------------------- W: adesklets hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/adesklets/.packlist W: adesklets perl-temp-file /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/adesklets/.packlist ----------------------------------------------------- - Usually .packlist files should be removed. * Permission ----------------------------------------------------- E: adesklets non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/updateproto.pl 0555 ----------------------------------------------------- - Why should this file should have 0555 (not 0755 or 0644) permission? * Encodings ----------------------------------------------------- W: adesklets file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/adesklets_fr.info.gz ----------------------------------------------------- Please change the encodings to UTF-8. * Desktop files - Categories are not right. ----------------------------------------------------- Categories=User Interface;Desktop; ----------------------------------------------------- while desktop-file-validate complains: ----------------------------------------------------- warning: Categories values must be one of "AudioVideo", "Audio", "Video", "Development", "Education", "Game", "Graphics", "Network", "Office", "Settings", "System", "Utility", "Building", "Debugger", "IDE", "GUIDesigner", "Profiling", "RevisionControl", "Translation", "Calendar", "ContactManagement", "Database", "Dictionary", "Chart", "Email", "Finance", "FlowChart", "PDA", "ProjectManagement", "Presentation", "Spreadsheet", "WordProcessor", "2DGraphics", "VectorGraphics", "RasterGraphics", "3DGraphics", "Scanning", "OCR", "Photography", "Viewer", "DesktopSettings", "HardwareSettings", "PackageManager", "Dialup", "InstantMessaging", "IRCClient", "FileTransfer", "HamRadio", "News", "P2P", "RemoteAccess", "Telephony", "WebBrowser", "WebDevelopment", "Midi", "Mixer", "Sequencer", "Tuner", "TV", "AudioVideoEditing", "Player", "Recorder", "DiscBurning", "ActionGame", "AdventureGame", "ArcadeGame", "BoardGame", "BlocksGame", "CardGame", "KidsGame", "LogicGame", "RolePlaying", "Simulation", "SportsGame", "StrategyGame", "Art", "Construction", "Music", "Languages", "Science", "Astronomy", "Biology", "Chemistry", "Geology", "Math", "MedicalSoftware", "Physics", "Amusement", "Archiving", "Electronics", "Emulator", "Engineering", "FileManager", "TerminalEmulator", "Filesystem", "Monitor", "Security", "Accessibility", "Calculator", "Clock", "TextEditor", "Core", "KDE", "GNOME", "GTK", "Qt", "Motif", "Java", "ConsoleOnly", "Screensaver", "TrayIcon", "Applet", "Shell" ----------------------------------------------------- - And what is the following? ----------------------------------------------------- Exec=twf ----------------------------------------------------- * Again Duplication of system libraries - /usr/share/adesklets/Vera.ttf Vera.ttf is included in bitstream-vera-fonts rpm and should not be included in this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 14:56:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:56:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227096] Review Request: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191456.l1JEubhl011951@bugzilla.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: plexus-archiver-1.0-0.a6.1jpp - Plexus Archiver Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227096 ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-19 09:56 EST ------- Actually, there's one thing that I didn't catch. Under the "svn" command, you need to include the "tar" command as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 15:07:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225839] Merge Review: gnome-terminal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191507.l1JF7Fef012438@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gnome-terminal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225839 ------- Additional Comments From reza at farsiweb.info 2007-02-19 10:07 EST ------- two little problems: $ rpmlint gnome-terminal-2.17.91-3.src.rpm W: gnome-terminal mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 68, tab: line 71) Unused patches are not removed from cvs. And /usr/share/gnome/help/, which package should owns this directory? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 15:20:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225750] Merge Review: file In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191520.l1JFKsuK013377@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225750 mbacovsk at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(jpmahowald at gmail.c | |om) ------- Additional Comments From mbacovsk at redhat.com 2007-02-19 10:20 EST ------- BuildRoot fixed, spec is UTF8 now, lincence fixed too. ldconfig was in main package, not in file-libs - fixed. Rpmlint now produces clean output on all built rpms. I hope file is ok now. Thanks for help. Version: file-4.19-3.fc7 was commited to cvs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 15:33:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:33:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225631] Merge Review: busybox In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191533.l1JFX0Pa014359@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: busybox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225631 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-19 10:32 EST ------- Thanks for your comments. The fixed version is busybox-1.2.2-6.fc7. (In reply to comment #1) > * instead of mv the files to reverse the patch, I suggest > patch -R -p1 < %{PATCH0} changed > * Is DOLFS really used? I can't find it in the sources removed > * the man page timestamp should be kept with -p fixed > * buildroot is not the preferred one fixed > * At least the selinux patch should be proposed upstream. Has it > been done? I'm investigating it. > * the .static patch and the .anaconda are unreadable, although they > bring in important changes. I think there should be a comment > explaining verbally what is done > * the whole process should also be commented since it is not trivial. > For example something along (maybe dispatched where things are done): > > # in %prep the .static patch is applied, to have a static busybox > # built. The executable is kept as busybox-static. > # then the .static patch is reverted and the .anaconda patch is > # applied to generate the busybox especially tailored for anaconda. changed > Suggestion: > * / between $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir} is not useful > > * use %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root) > > * > %patch8 -b .gcc111 -p1 > should certainly be > %patch8 -b .gcc41 -p1 > -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 15:35:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:35:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225671] Merge Review: curl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191535.l1JFZvcE014556@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: curl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225671 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(ruben at rubenkerkhof| |.com) | ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-19 10:35 EST ------- Hi Jindrich, > what install -p do you have in mind? I don't see any in the spec file. > Do you mean those in Makefiles? Yes, in the Makefile. > Not sure whether it is needed or not, but definitely we should get rid of it. > The question is whether to move it to a -static subpackage or to remove it > completely. What's your optionon on it? I would say remove it completely, you can probably disable static libs in the configure stage. There's more on static libs in the PackagingGuidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 15:43:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:43:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229180] Review Request: TeXLive 2007 - the TeX formatting system, noarch part In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191543.l1JFh9uK015621@bugzilla.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: TeXLive 2007 - the TeX formatting system, noarch part https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229180 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-19 10:43 EST ------- Yes, the whole addition of TeXLive will need inclusion of three separate source packages: texmf (request filed), texmf-errata (request filed) and binaries. I put the WIP SRPM of the binary texlive to: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/texlive/ but I'll file a review request for it as soon as it's fixed. In the meantime you can have a look at the spec if you wish. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 15:57:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:57:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191557.l1JFvhx6016827@bugzilla.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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug! Alias: nemiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-19 10:57 EST ------- Good morning! :] I've uploaded 0.3.0-6, which removes the chcon invocation. Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SPECs/nemiver.spec SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SRPMs/nemiver-0.3.0-6.src.rpm Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 15:58:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:58:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191558.l1JFwuSu016933@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-19 10:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Created an attachment (id=148205) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148205&action=view) [edit] > Mock build log of KoboDeluxe-0.4-0.1.pre10.fc7 > > Well, for 0.4-0.1.pre10: > > * BuildRequires > - mockbuild fails on FC7 i386. SDL_image-devel seems > to be needed for BuildRequires. > Oops, fixed > * Encodings > - Some documentations installed by this package have > other Encodings than UTF-8. Please change them to > UTF-8. > ------------------------------------------------------ > README ISO-8859-1 > README.jp ISO-2022-JP > README.xkobo.jp ISO-2022-JP > ------------------------------------------------------ > Strange rpmlint didn't complain about this, fixed. > * Documentation > - README.osx > I don't think this is useful. > Agreed, no longer installed > * Timestamps > - This package contains many data files (especially > under %{_datadir}/%{_name} ) and keeping > timestamps on these files are recommended. > Fixed > * Setgid bits > - Well, would you just explain why setgid bits is required > for the binary? > Because it needs a shared (between users) writable dir to keep its highscore, normally games like this are either patched to: 1) be sgid games, then first thing in main open the shared highscore-file in rw mode (and keep it open until exit), then fully drop sgid games rights. 2) use a per user highscore file under $HOME instead Due to the design of the highscore system of KoboDeluxe neither one of these 2 solutions is easy doable, thus we go to the third seldom used solution sgid to a unique sgid, as is done also for example with several games in the bsdgames package. > ? Alsa issue > - Well I tried to enable alsa support, however it failed > because this package is for some old alsa-lib support > (around alsa-lib 0.5.9). Well, if it is preferred to > make this package have alsa support, would you contact > upstream? > This is not really a problem as without any configure switches it uses SDL for sound, which by default uses also while also allowing for the use of esd, arts and oss through environment settings. > * Functionality > - Well, I tried this package on both FC5 and FC-devel. > On FC-5, there is no problem, however, on FC-devel, > it seems that kobodl hangs up completely. > > Well, as it hangs up after swithing to full screen mode, > I don't know how to get a backtrace... Would you know > any idea? Found it (nasty bug) strange enough it doesn't show up on 64 bit machines, fixed now (see -audio.patch). New version here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/KoboDeluxe.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/KoboDeluxe-0.4-0.2.pre10.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 16:02:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:02:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223039] Review Request: libgimme-codec - Helper library for automated codecs installation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191602.l1JG20lC017158@bugzilla.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: libgimme-codec - Helper library for automated codecs installation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223039 bnocera at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From bnocera at redhat.com 2007-02-19 11:01 EST ------- The functionality has been moved to GStreamer itself, closing. -- 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 Mon Feb 19 16:02:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:02:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191602.l1JG2Cxe017195@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-19 11:02 EST ------- Hi mamoru, i'll within an hours (mock's working for) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 16:11:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:11:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227111] Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191611.l1JGBQBB018068@bugzilla.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: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227111 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-19 11:11 EST ------- marking fedora-review+ qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK* specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style (these warnings look ok) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: OK * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 16:12:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:12:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191612.l1JGCBZL018154@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-19 11:12 EST ------- Hi mamoru, i'll within an hours (mock's working for) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 16:12:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:12:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227111] Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191612.l1JGCmdh018215@bugzilla.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: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227111 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |mwringe at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 16:43:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:43:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191643.l1JGhqcn021072@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-19 11:43 EST ------- (In reply to comment #42) > Bernard, now gdome2 maintainer is you. I just submitted a build of gdome2 for devel, so it will probably appear tomorrow, unless you are using the buildsys repo. Also, here is later build of ntop. Starting with the rc0 of ntop, it would not build for me. There were big updates to the autotools configurations. I didn't understand why it wasn't building so I did a bi-section of the changes. Now I have a patch that will make it build, but honestly, I'm not sure why it works. If you wouldn't mind, take a look at shrext.patch. If I don't apply this small patch on my system to reverse part of the changes, the build will fail on my system. Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop-3.3-0.1.20060218cvs.fc6.src.rpm * Wed Feb 18 2007 Bernard Johnson - 3.3-0.1.20060218cvs - update to ntop cvs 20060208 * Wed Feb 07 2007 Bernard Johnson - 3.3-0.1.20060207cvs - update to ntop cvs 20060207 - remove gdbm, pidfile, and FEDORAextra patches - ntopdump.dtd has fixed eol markers now - update nolibs patch so there is no complaint about xmldump libraries/headers -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 16:44:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:44:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227068] Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191644.l1JGiDdf021130@bugzilla.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: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227068 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-19 11:43 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/jaxen-1.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > MUST: > X - remove defines at start for name, version, release and fill in tags Fixed. > W: jaxen unversioned-explicit-provides jaxen-bootstrap > W: jaxen unversioned-explicit-obsoletes jaxen-bootstrap Fixed, fixed. > W: jaxen mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 44) Fixed. > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > - one comment goes over Fixed. > X remove %ghost > - use %{_javadocdir}/* Fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 16:46:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:46:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225299] Merge Review: automake15 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191646.l1JGk97x021312@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake15 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225299 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-19 11:46 EST ------- automake15-1.5-18 has the most common review issues fixed, please check... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 16:46:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191646.l1JGkJL0021339@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-19 11:46 EST ------- Well, mockbuild for -0.2.pre10 just finished and this time this game causes no problem on my FC-devel i386 system. I will recheck this now. By the way.. Does this game try to create some files under %{_var}/games/kobo-deluxe (e.g. some score files)? If so, there is a possibility that this directory is not deleted when trying to uninstall this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 17:01:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:01:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225750] Merge Review: file In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191701.l1JH19jh022672@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225750 jpmahowald at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(jpmahowald at gmail.c| |om) | ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com 2007-02-19 12:01 EST ------- Better. But rpmlint sees an rpath: rpmlint of file-4.19-3.fc7.x86_64.rpm:E: file binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /us r/bin/file ['/usr/lib64'] As per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines file seems to use a generated libtool script setting rpath, and the linker is smarter than that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 17:27:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:27:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191727.l1JHRPE4025108@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-19 12:27 EST ------- Well, for -0.2.pre10: * Documentation - Perhaps README.xkobo is missing - One more non-UTF8 document found (note: this is not detected by rpmlint) ChangeLog ISO-8859-1 = Yes, kobosfx.h seems to be needed. Other things except my concern on comment 4 is okay. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 17:41:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:41:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191741.l1JHf59H026442@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-19 12:40 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148349) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148349&action=view) mock build log of konwert-1.8-7.fc7 Xavier, if you want to check mock build log of me, please check the attached (on FC-devel i386) Well, this package seems to have some big and minor issues, however I leave this to you for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 17:46:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:46:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191746.l1JHkQJY026735@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-19 12:46 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148350) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148350&action=view) mock build log of 3.3-0.2.20060218cvs.fc7 mockbuild succeeded on FC7 i386, install succeeded, however I have not checked this at all and I will go to sleep for now... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 17:56:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:56:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191756.l1JHuVGc027807@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|NEXTRELEASE | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-19 12:56 EST ------- (Just fixing...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 17:57:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:57:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226729] Review Request: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191757.l1JHvWir027869@bugzilla.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: duel3 - One on one spaceship duel in a 2D arena Alias: duel3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226729 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE AssignedTo|j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl |chris.stone at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO| |163779 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 18:00:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:00:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 201502] Review Request: php-pear-PhpDocumentor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191800.l1JI05BO027988@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PhpDocumentor Alias: phpDocumentor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201502 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-19 13:00 EST ------- Note -docs now picks up a rpmlint warning: W: php-pear-PhpDocumentor-docs wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/php-pear-PhpDocumentor-docs-1.3.1/Documentation/Release-old/Release-0.3.0 Please fix this before building; everything else looks to have been addressed... APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 18:06:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:06:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 201502] Review Request: php-pear-PhpDocumentor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191806.l1JI6SQQ028501@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PhpDocumentor Alias: phpDocumentor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201502 ------- Additional Comments From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com 2007-02-19 13:06 EST ------- Comment #6 not fixed. IN : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PHP > The source archive contains a package.xml outside any directory, so you have to use use > %setup -q -c > in your %prep section to avoid writing files to the build root. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 18:39:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:39:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191839.l1JId6Tw031638@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 ------- Additional Comments From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com 2007-02-19 13:39 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148354) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148354&action=view) Patch against php.spec Tanks dmitry, i forget this 2. Here is a patch against php.spec to provide this 4 extensions. Regards -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 18:44:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:44:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229243] New: Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x 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=229243 Summary: Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bugs.michael at gmx.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/compat-wxGTK26.spec SRPM URL: http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/compat-wxGTK26-2.6.3-1.src.rpm Description: wxWidgets/GTK2 is the GTK2 port of the C++ cross-platform wxWidgets GUI library, offering classes for all common GUI controls as well as a comprehensive set of helper classes for most common application tasks, ranging from networking to HTML display and image manipulation. [...] Package is customised to coexist with wxGTK >= 2.8 for Fedora 7. The -devel package can be installed in parallel with wxGTK-devel, too. Audacity 1.3.2-beta can be built with this, for example. With >= 2.8 it locks up, and more recent CVS snapshots of Audacity introduce new problems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 18:45:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:45:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 201502] Review Request: php-pear-PhpDocumentor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191845.l1JIj0H4032269@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PhpDocumentor Alias: phpDocumentor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201502 ------- Additional Comments From icon at fedoraproject.org 2007-02-19 13:44 EST ------- Noted. Will address both before importing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 18:51:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:51:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191851.l1JIpac9000553@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 jorton at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(jorton at redhat.com)| ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-19 13:51 EST ------- I haven't had time to go through the rpmlint list exhaustively, it looks 99% useless. Can someone sort out the wheat from the chaff? - invalid-license and no-docs warnings are obviously bogus - the php-$MODULE provides are deliberately not versioned, and versioning these would be tricky because many of the modules have versions independently in PEAR; that's not going to get fixed in a hurry. - the Obsoletes for the old-style mod_php3 et al could probably be dropped, adding Provides for them is not particularly useful at this point - the debuginfo perms mismatches should be fixed in find-debuginfo.sh not in every spec file, filed bug 228987 for that -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 18:59:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:59:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191859.l1JIxYYx001285@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 ------- Additional Comments From ajackson at redhat.com 2007-02-19 13:59 EST ------- Okay, did some cleanup. First, Xorg is built on all arches except s390{,x}, so I flipped the ExclusiveArch at the top of the file to be ExcludeArch. In general I'd prefer to use ExcludeArch, since there's no intrinsic reason for most of X to be arch-specific. I did the same to all the driver packages I could, with the exception of a few that really are arch-specific. There's only ~8 of these, and they're clearly listed at the bottom of the Requires list now, along with a short comment for each explaining why they're %ifarch'd. Removed the Obsoletes: and fixed the License to be MIT. It's just a metapackage, there's really nothing to license, so picking the same license class as the drivers it's meta for seems appropriate. Which leaves us with: % rpmlint xorg-x11-drivers-7.2-2.fc7.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-drivers no-url-tag % rpmlint i686/xorg-x11-drivers-7.2-2.fc7.i686.rpm W: xorg-x11-drivers no-url-tag E: xorg-x11-drivers no-binary W: xorg-x11-drivers no-documentation As above, not having a binary is fine for this package. Removing the URL now generates an rpmlint warning for not having a URL. Eh. I think it's better without one. Also I don't see the point in making a trivial doc payload, given that it'd just be a repeat of the %description. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:01:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:01:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191901.l1JJ1nAZ001541@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 jorton at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(jorton at redhat.com)| ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-19 14:01 EST ------- Thanks Remi - I've updated as you indicate. w.r.t download_dir + cache_dir - is there actually an issue here? I can't see one: e.g. "pear install" is not going to work for non-root users anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:03:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:03:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225983] Merge Review: less In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191903.l1JJ3U51001735@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: less https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225983 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-19 14:03 EST ------- Why would executable bits for /etc/profile.d/*sh scripts be correct? They do not have a shebang, so they cannot be executed alone, and /etc/bashrc and /etc/csh.cshrc check for them using -r (readability, not executability), then source (not execute) them. Some 5+ years ago it was necessary to have them executable because of bugs in the setup package, but that has been fixed since around Red Hat Linux 7.1, see bug 35714. 644 should be the correct permissions for them these days. Having them with incorrect permissions in CVS is an orthogonal issue which shouldn't prevent them from being shipped with correct permissions in the actual package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:07:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:07:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191907.l1JJ7013001952@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-19 14:06 EST ------- Enabling mhash, mcrypt and tidy is something that can only happen *after* the merge not before. Enabling dbase should be subject of a normal RFE bug, it's nothing to do with the package review per se. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:08:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:08:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191908.l1JJ8xBG002161@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-19 14:08 EST ------- i would like to see #199381 fixed with this also -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:10:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:10:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191910.l1JJAVus002370@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-19 14:10 EST ------- The explicit "Requires: net-snmp" is desired, yes, per bug 174800. (s/PEAR/PECL/ in my comment above) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:15:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:15:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] New: Review Request: koji - Build system tools 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=229250 Summary: Review Request: koji - Build system tools Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jkeating at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/koji/koji.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/koji/koji-0.9.5-5.src.rpm Description: Koji is a system for building and tracking RPMS. Current rpmlint output is: W: koji incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.5-1 0.9.5-5.fc7 W: koji strange-permission koji.spec 0600 W: koji-builder no-documentation E: koji-builder non-standard-uid /etc/mock/koji kojibuilder E: koji-builder non-standard-gid /etc/mock/koji kojibuilder W: koji-builder service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/kojid W: koji-builder incoherent-init-script-name kojid W: koji-hub no-documentation W: koji-utils no-documentation W: koji-utils service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/kojira W: koji-utils incoherent-init-script-name kojira W: koji-web no-documentation which I think is all waveable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:22:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:22:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191922.l1JJM0aD003467@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-19 14:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #0) > Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/koji/koji.spec > SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/koji/koji-0.9.5-5.src.rpm > Description: Koji is a system for building and tracking RPMS. > > Current rpmlint output is: > > W: koji incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.5-1 0.9.5-5.fc7 dont put the dist value in the changelog > W: koji strange-permission koji.spec 0600 make it 664 > W: koji-builder no-documentation > E: koji-builder non-standard-uid /etc/mock/koji kojibuilder > E: koji-builder non-standard-gid /etc/mock/koji kojibuilder > W: koji-builder service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/kojid cant be on by default > W: koji-builder incoherent-init-script-name kojid easy fix > W: koji-hub no-documentation > W: koji-utils no-documentation > W: koji-utils service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/kojira cant be on by default > W: koji-utils incoherent-init-script-name kojira again easy fix > W: koji-web no-documentation > > which I think is all waveable. not quite Ill give it a closer look soon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:26:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:26:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191926.l1JJQEhK003901@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-19 14:26 EST ------- Drat, too slow. Pasting this in anyway: Pretty much. It's important that the changelog entries actually match up; the first rpmlint warning is complaining that the current package is 0.9.5-5 but the last changelog entry was for 0.9.5-1. The rest seem OK, although it is odd that the specfile is 600 in the srpm. One thing I saw after a few seconds of seeing the spec is %define debug_package %{nil} This shouldn't be required for a noarch package, but rpm has surprised is all in the past. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:27:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:27:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191927.l1JJRdZq004070@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 jwilson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jwilson at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:43:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:43:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] New: Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs 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=229257 Summary: Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Math-Random-MT-Auto/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto-5.04-1.fc6.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto.spec Description: The Mersenne Twister is a fast pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) that is capable of providing large volumes (> 10^6004) of "high quality" pseudorandom data to applications that may exhaust available "truly" random data sources or system-provided PRNGs such as rand. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:43:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191943.l1JJhltE005162@bugzilla.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-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229257 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |163776 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:45:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:45:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225999] Merge Review: libdrm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191945.l1JJjF7C005286@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libdrm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225999 ------- Additional Comments From ajackson at redhat.com 2007-02-19 14:45 EST ------- I went ahead and cleaned out the rpmlint warnings. Only one left is no-documentation for libdrm-devel, which isn't fixable since there's nothing in the package that would qualify. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:45:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:45:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191945.l1JJjJGV005294@bugzilla.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-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229257 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-19 14:45 EST ------- Note: this is a new "soft" requirement of perl-Object-InsideOut when updated to latest levels. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 19:48:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 14:48:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227102] Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702191948.l1JJmmZs005562@bugzilla.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: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227102 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 20:16:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:16:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227102] Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192016.l1JKGHUo007993@bugzilla.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: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227102 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-19 15:15 EST ------- Here's the link to the udpated spec file and source rpm: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/plexus/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 20:16:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:16:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227089] Review Request: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192016.l1JKGgeD008052@bugzilla.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: msv-1.2-0.20050722.2jpp - Multischema Validator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227089 mwringe at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-19 15:16 EST ------- Looks good to me. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 20:19:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:19:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192019.l1JKJgVU008221@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 jwilson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-19 15:19 EST ------- * source files match upstream: - 15de3830b751818a54a42899bd3ae72c libcdaudio-0.99.12p2.tar.gz - 15de3830b751818a54a42899bd3ae72c libcdaudio-0.99.12p2-orig.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. ! BuildRoot is not correct, should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. GPL2, License text included in package. - rpmlint complains about GPL2, but rpmlint probably shouldn't... * latest version is being packaged. ! BuildRequires are proper. - Technically, nothing wrong with gcc-c++, but its listed in the packaging guidelines as an exception that should be left out, since its always in the minimum build root. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (F7/x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. - Only complaint is the Warning about GPL2, which I say we ignore. * final provides and requires are sane: libcdaudio provides/requires: -- libcdaudio.so.1()(64bit) libcdaudio = 0.99.12p2-8.fc7 -- libcdaudio.so.1()(64bit) libcdaudio-devel provides/requires: -- libcdaudio-devel = 0.99.12p2-8.fc7 -- libcdaudio = 0.99.12p2-8.fc7 libcdaudio.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig * %check is n/a * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers in -devel - cdaudio.h ought to be installed w/-p to preserve timestamps, but that looks to be upstream's fault * pkgconfig files in -devel, properly requires pkgconfig * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. I think the only MUSTFIX item is the BuildRoot, but I'd suggest also dropping the BR: on gcc-c++. Whether or not to patch the Makefile to install the header w/-p I'll leave up to you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 20:24:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:24:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192024.l1JKOKWE008486@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-19 15:24 EST ------- Fixed up some things SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/koji/koji-0.9.5-6.src.rpm As per IRC convo, service by default isn't explicitly bad. Not encouraged but in this case its probably OK. Not something that should block a review. specfile permission was caused by Makefile making the srpm from a tarball, seems to have messed with the permission somehow. I made the Makefile make srpm directly from .spec and now its fine. *shrug* Removed debuginfo line. kojira is the name of the executable, as well as the init script, this I thought was OK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 20:28:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:28:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192028.l1JKSIMA008650@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-19 15:28 EST ------- Minor correction after talking with some folks on the license issue: it should be reduced to simply "GPL", since the included readme doesn't list an explicit version of the GPL. -- libcdaudio is distributed under the GNU Library General Public License, included in this package under the top level source directory in the file COPYING. -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 20:31:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192031.l1JKVq8p008856@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-19 15:31 EST ------- Attached new version with license sorted out. It cointain olso 2 splitted patches from latest CVS, one is 64bit fix second is gmath replacement with a new GPLv2 one. Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.6-4.src.rpm can review ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 21:19:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:19:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 210776] Review Request: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192119.l1JLJBxJ012213@bugzilla.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: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210776 ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com 2007-02-19 16:19 EST ------- Build failed inside mock, FC6 x86_64. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 21:19:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:19:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227102] Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192119.l1JLJZE1012254@bugzilla.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: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227102 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-19 16:19 EST ------- plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NA * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-i18n non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-i18n mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 69) (minor warnings, should be ok) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NA * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 21:19:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:19:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192119.l1JLJcsa012272@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-19 16:19 EST ------- OK, seems this has been fixed by using a linker script instead of a symlink. Looks like a -static subpackage popped up since I first looked at this; I think this is one of those packages that warrants the availability of static libs so I have no complaints. I've done a fresh build on my buildsys, which gives me more information than what was available to us at fudcon. Here's the current set of rpmlint complaints: W: ncurses unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmenuw.so.5.6 /lib64/libdl.so.2 W: ncurses unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libpanel.so.5.6 /lib64/libdl.so.2 W: ncurses unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libform.so.5.6 /lib64/libdl.so.2 W: ncurses unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libformw.so.5.6 /lib64/libdl.so.2 W: ncurses unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libpanelw.so.5.6 /lib64/libdl.so.2 W: ncurses unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmenu.so.5.6 /lib64/libdl.so.2 These will only show up if you run rpmlint on the installed package. I think they show up because the configure script sticks "-ldl" on the link line for whatever reason. E: ncurses-static devel-dependency ncurses-devel W: ncurses-static no-documentation W: ncurses-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libncursesw.a W: ncurses-static devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libmenuw_g.a [and several more identical warnings] These are all OK. I have to run now; I'll finish this a bit later. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 21:44:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:44:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226239] Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192144.l1JLiF9I015128@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-Archive-Tar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226239 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-19 16:44 EST ------- jpo: Ok, your fixes are incorporated into 1.30-3 - let me know if anything seems amiss. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 21:45:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:45:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226261] Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192145.l1JLj2d3015183@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl-HTML-Tagset https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226261 rnorwood at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jpo at di.uminho.pt |rnorwood at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 22:13:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:13:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192213.l1JMDaXb017315@bugzilla.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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 faucamp at csir.co.za changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-19 17:13 EST ------- Built successfully on -devel; closing ticket and requesting additional branches via CVS flags: FC-5 FC-6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 22:17:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:17:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192217.l1JMHKId017541@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From rpm at timj.co.uk 2007-02-19 17:17 EST ------- Actually, "pear install" is very useful for non-root users to deploy localised PEAR installs or installs or applications which use the PEAR installer, in combination with options specifying e.g. php_dir etc. That said, in that case they will probably have a customised pearrc which can/could/would override cache_dir and download_dir. I suppose what would be coolest is some run-time substitution of a "current user" part in download_dir and cache_dir, but that's almost certainly overcomplicated. I don't think it's harmful having cache_dir = download_dir. **Highly** recommended reading for all those interested in this bug is ISBN 1904811191 ("The PEAR Installer Manifesto: Revolutionizing PHP Application Development and Deployment" by the upstream lead Greg Beaver) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 22:17:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:17:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192217.l1JMHOMI017566@bugzilla.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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-19 17:17 EST ------- I believe your package already has those branches as empty directories. You should be able to check it out fresh with those directories, add your files, checkin, tag and build. Is this not the case? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 22:23:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:23:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192223.l1JMNqK6017880@bugzilla.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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-19 17:23 EST ------- Wow, that was quick ;-) Nope, sadly all I have is a devel branch: $ cvs co amarokFS cvs checkout: Updating amarokFS U amarokFS/Makefile U amarokFS/import.log U amarokFS/pkg.acl cvs checkout: Updating amarokFS/devel U amarokFS/devel/.cvsignore U amarokFS/devel/Makefile U amarokFS/devel/amarokFS-0.4.2-config_dialog_layout.patch U amarokFS/devel/amarokFS-0.4.2-fedora_paths.patch U amarokFS/devel/amarokFS-0.4.2-large_cover_images.patch U amarokFS/devel/amarokFS-0.4.2-start_amarok.patch U amarokFS/devel/amarokFS-0.4.2-theme_howto.patch U amarokFS/devel/amarokFS-0.4.2-theme_prev_button.patch U amarokFS/devel/amarokFS.spec U amarokFS/devel/sources cvs checkout: Updating common U common/Makefile U common/Makefile.common U common/branches U common/cvs-import.sh -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 22:51:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:51:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228272] Review Request: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192251.l1JMpJvZ019513@bugzilla.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: amarokFS - Simple, nice looking full screen front-end for Amarok https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228272 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-19 17:50 EST ------- oops, OK fixing this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:06:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:06:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226449] Merge Review: syslinux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192306.l1JN6Guk020379@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: syslinux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226449 mdehaan at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mdehaan at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mdehaan at redhat.com 2007-02-19 18:06 EST ------- Having somewhat of a vested interest in syslinux, I'll review this one also. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:08:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:08:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192308.l1JN8FSI020524@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-19 18:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > Depending on itself: Er.. can you be more specific? Which line are you looking at? The build is depending on coreutils commands, like mkdir, install, cp, mv. It also depends on find (in find_lang), bzip2, m4 (through autoconf), perl. Build dependency on bzip2 and perl could be avoided, but in any case I can't see how depending on coreutils could avoioded completely. It would depend through make, gcc and certainly some libs anyway. > Huge amount of patches: there are just 13 patches, and work is being done > upstream to integrate several of them. Others will never get upstream. 13 patches is a lot, for a package which has an active upstream, and patches are not related with integration to fedora. Anyway I guess you know much better what to do than me, still it may be worth retrying patch submission after time has gone by and things evolved. > FHS macros: this was addressed in comment #2. No, it wasn't. I said /etc, /var and /usr/bin are hardcoded in the spec file, maybe they could be changed to macros. in comment #2, there is mention of /sbin and /bin. In fact for /etc and /var it is in fact a bad idea since it is a substitution in a doc file, it is better to leave them as is, so you can forget about /etc and /var, sorry for the noise. There is still one /usr/bin: for i in env cut; do ln -sf ../../bin/$i $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin; done Suggestion: remove / in RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir} > sed instead of perl: no need to change this This is more a suggestion, but it may be worth trying to avoid unnedeed build dependency in the hope to reduce further the build base; in my opinion it would be nice not to have perl in every build. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:16:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:16:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] New: Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader 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=229291 Summary: Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: belegdol at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.republika.pl/belegdol/rpmstuff/thinkfinger.spec SRPM URL: http://www.republika.pl/belegdol/rpmstuff/thinkfinger-0.2.2-1.src.rpm Description: ThinkFinger is a driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader (USB ID 0483:2016). The device is being found either as a standalone USB device, built into USB keyboards or built into laptops. Package builds fine in mock (devel/x86_64) and rpmlint is silent. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:22:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:22:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226671] Merge Review: zlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192322.l1JNMc4M021453@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-19 18:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > > * Is Prefix: %{_prefix} needed? > I prefer to leave prefix flag set there. Why? It is allready set to that exact value? > > and in %install there could be a comment saying > > # the first make triggers compilation of the object files, linking of the > > # shared library and installs the library > > # The second make triggers the linking of the static library and > > # its installation > this comment is not necessary I disagree. Doing the build in %install is messy and deserves a comment. You should try to do your best such that anybody looking at your spec can understand immediately what you are doing. Doing comments for non standard build procedures is important. > These documents are not part of upstream tarball Why is it an issue? A description of the API is missing, th > > * It seems to me that there should be a make clean between the 2 > > make -f invocations, to trigger recompilation with the flags without -fPIC > > * I'll attach a patch to simplify the build and install, and use more > > macros. > fixed Not completely. I still see some issues with the spec file: * executables are compiled as part of %install and not %build * man pages are not installed in %{_mandir}, libs are not in %{_libdir}, headers are not in %{_includedir} * files compiled with shared libs flags (-fPIC) are used for static libraries. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:23:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:23:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192323.l1JNNJE5021488@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 mr.ecik at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mr.ecik at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-19 18:23 EST ------- > #strip things that don't get stripped automatically > strip $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_lib}/security/pam_thinkfinger.so ||: It seems that it's not stripped automagically because of wrong permissions of pam_thinkfinger.so. Do chmod +x $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_lib}/security/pam_thinkfinger.so and rpm should strip it then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:27:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:27:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192327.l1JNROt4021720@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |kevin at tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-19 18:27 EST ------- I'd be happy to review this a bit later. My primary machine is a thinkpad with a fingerprint reader, so I should be able to test it as well. Could you perhaps put up an updated release with the issue in comment #1 addressed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:27:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:27:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192327.l1JNRgqq021745@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wart at kobold.org OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:29:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:29:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226449] Merge Review: syslinux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192329.l1JNTjep021961@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: syslinux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226449 ------- Additional Comments From mdehaan at redhat.com 2007-02-19 18:29 EST ------- Initial scan... E: syslinux tag-not-utf8 %changelog Encodings as appearing from "file" do seem odd. file syslinux.spec syslinux.spec: ISO-8859 make commands text W: syslinux no-url-tag This should probably be a Url: http://syslinux.zytor.com E: syslinux non-utf8-spec-file syslinux.spec See earlier comments on file format. W: syslinux unversioned-explicit-provides syslinux-devel Probably should add the version here. E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/libsyslinux* E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/*.com E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/*.exe E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/*.c32 E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/*.bin E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/*.0 E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/memdisk E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/*.pl E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/mkdiskimage E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/syslinux E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/syslinux-nomtools E: syslinux hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/syslinux/com32 I'm not entirely sure what Fedora Extras guidelines say here for packages that are exclusively 32bit, but I would expect to see %{_libdir} here. Maybe syslinux gets an exception? W: syslinux mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 59, tab: line 58) This should be relatively easy to fix and isn't a major problem. ---- Other comments: (+) Biuldroot, license, and other header info looks good with the exception of the missing URL. ExclusiveArch is right for what syslinux supports, etc. (?) Can Requires: /usr/include/gnu/stubs-32.h be replaced by the package that provides it (glibc-devel) or is there a reason for doing this? (?) Doesn't specify a specific version of perl or netpbm-progs, though specifying some minimum version would be desirable. (+) Files section looks fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:29:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:29:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225631] Merge Review: busybox In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192329.l1JNTvjW021992@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: busybox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225631 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-19 18:29 EST ------- Suggestion: install -p docs/BusyBox.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1/busybox.1 chmod 644 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1/busybox.1 may be done in one command install -p -m644 docs/BusyBox.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mandir}/man1/busybox.1 In my opinion, a must fix item: I insist on having a comment explaining what is in the shipped busybox (that is explaining .static and .anaconda patches that are basically unreadable). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:32:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:32:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226449] Merge Review: syslinux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192332.l1JNWLMW022133@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: syslinux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226449 ------- Additional Comments From mdehaan at redhat.com 2007-02-19 18:32 EST ------- Passing this back to pjones for fixing, if anyone else on fedora-review sees anything else that they would like to point out, please do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:33:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:33:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226449] Merge Review: syslinux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192333.l1JNXEuN022175@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: syslinux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226449 mdehaan at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mdehaan at redhat.com |pjones at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From mdehaan at redhat.com 2007-02-19 18:33 EST ------- Passing this back to pjones for fixing, if anyone else on fedora-review sees anything else that they would like to point out, please do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:33:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:33:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192333.l1JNXUAQ022192@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-19 18:33 EST ------- GOOD ==== * Source matches upstream: db5dd531d4d7113c1777ba66a41fe803 poker-network-1.0.35.tar.gz * GPL license ok, license file included * rpmlint output clean * Spec file legible and in Am. English * Compiles and builds on FC6-i386, FC6-x86_64, devel-i386, devel-x86_64 * Language files properly handled with %find_lang * No shared libraries in the default linker path * $RPM_BUILD_ROOT cleaned where appropriate * Package owns all directories that it creates * No duplicate %files * No need for -devel subpackage * No need for separate -doc subpackage * Not relocatable * .desktop file installed correctly * No pkgconfig files MUSTFIX ======= * .la droppings. If these are needed, then document the reason why in the spec file. /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_pokerinterface.la /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_pokerinterface2_4.la * The documentation file NIHPHOBIA is cute, but unnecessary. COMMENTS ======== * poker2d currently shares the same source tarball as poker-network. But as the comment mentions in the spec file, these will eventually be split upstream into two separate tarballs. This is acceptable. * poker2d-common contains a single file. Is it really necessary to split this into a separate subpackage? * Runs fine on FC6, but I've had odd crashes on FC7 with python 2.5. Upstream may want to consider more testing with python 2.5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:33:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:33:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192333.l1JNXhwL022211@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-19 18:33 EST ------- Also I don't think that /etc/profile.d/ content should be (noreplace) and I even think that making it %(config) is dubious. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:37:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:37:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192337.l1JNbUkj022351@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-19 18:37 EST ------- Indeed, There's some things which should be fix. ------------------------------- spec file: ------------------------------- ** BuildRequires - BR perl is useless as it requires by default installed package (such as xorg-x11-server-Xorg) ** %package Devel - Requires: konwert SHOULD be : requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - Group should be Development/Tools ** %description devel - SHOULD only describe contains about -devel package, not main package. ** %build - OPTFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS %{!?debug:-fomit-frame-pointer}" can be remove. Build and work well without this. - in this case, use OPTFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions \ -fno-implicit-templates" instead of - use make instead %{_make}. ** %install - use make install instead of %{_make} install. - The use of : prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix} \ mandir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir} \ mydocdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/konwert-%{version} \ perl=%{_bindir}/perl \ libdir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir} \ sound good and work except mydocdir= (see below for more explaination). after have a look on build.log (and Makefile), i can see the use of "sed" to change default location (which match with fedora install location) such as /usr/share/ by /usr/local/share). Can be fix by patching Makefile but require more working time. - the use of "dontfixmanconfig=1", check if it's necessary and comment why. - keep timestamps on make install by addind "INSTALL=install -p" ** %post - Doesn't look good. ** %files and %files devel - doesn't sound good at all. - The use of "%{_docdir}/konwert-%{version}/en/*" is deprecated and must be drop. All doc MUST be set in %doc just after %defattr macros. - the use of %attr(755,root,root): Personnaly, I prefere use chmod command in %install section and comment the reason of. - You package doesn't own the %{_datadir}/%{name}. - The use of %lang(p1) is useless - some files mentioned twice. - %{_mandir}/man1 instead of %{_mandir}/man*/* - You don't need to mentione explicitly all files, just the use of main location is enough. such as %{_datadir}/%{name} (and own in the same time) Spec file doesn't meet the packeging Guidlines, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. -------------------------- Rpmlint output -------------------------- ** From srpm file: clean. ** From main rpm package: W: konwert file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/filterm.1.gz W: konwert file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/pl/man1/trs.1.gz W: konwert file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/pl/man1/filterm.1.gz W: konwert file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/pl/man1/konwert.1.gz W: konwert file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/konwert.1.gz - Can be fix by the use of iconv command in %prep or %install. W: konwert one-line-command-in-%post /usr/share/konwert/aux/fixmanconfig - As i mentioned above, this is not quite good. ** From -devel rpm package: clean. ** From -debuginfos rpm package: E: konwert-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package - this package contains no files. rpmbuild not being able to strip the binaries. If i forgot to mentione something, i will post FE-REVIEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:38:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:38:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192338.l1JNciMS022428@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 ------- Additional Comments From belegdol at gmail.com 2007-02-19 18:38 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.republika.pl/belegdol/rpmstuff/thinkfinger.spec SRPM URL: http://www.republika.pl/belegdol/rpmstuff/thinkfinger-0.2.2-2.src.rpm Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:46:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:46:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192346.l1JNkAb9022787@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-19 18:46 EST ------- I'll put my oar in once again. There's "Requires: libusb" in libthinkfinger.pc file. It means that you ought to add libusb-devel dependency to devel subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:51:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:51:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225880] Merge Review: hal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192351.l1JNpxY4023054@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225880 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-19 18:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > In response to comment 3: > > I've fixed most of this except making /etc/dbus-1/system.d/hal.conf > %config(noreplace). I've made it %config however as > /etc/dbus-1/system.d/hal.conf isn't a configuration at all; It defines the security policy of HAL, it is an obvious config file. You may prefer to keep it under the packager responsibility, but it is a config file. I am personally fine with having this file %config, seems like a good compromise. I think that %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d/haldaemon shouldn't be %config. Maybe you could use %_initrddir for that file. The Application category in .desktop file is deprecated. What about putting hal-info in another package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:53:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:53:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192353.l1JNrMMK023150@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-19 18:53 EST ------- Spec URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker2d.spec SRPM URL: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/poker2d-1.0.35-3.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Feb 19 2007 Christopher Stone 1.0.35-3 - Remove NIHPHOBIA from %%doc - Remove libtool archive files The libexec file in poker2d-common will also be used by the (not yet packaged) poker3d package. I will inform upstream about crashes with python2.5. Thanks for the review! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 19 23:54:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:54:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227256] Review Request: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702192354.l1JNsdD0023271@bugzilla.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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From pikachu.2014 at free.fr 2007-02-19 18:54 EST ------- I would like to make a little suggestion : I have tested the RPM on my mobile phone (a Motorola Razr V3) and with the version 0.3 of moto4lin, it doesn't work. But with the SVN version --- moreover it is confirmed by the Moto4lin developpers -- the SVN version supports more phones models, like mine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 00:15:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:15:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200015.l1K0FaSV023892@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-19 19:15 EST ------- All MUSTFIX items fixed. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 00:16:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:16:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200016.l1K0GR7i023920@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 ------- Additional Comments From belegdol at gmail.com 2007-02-19 19:16 EST ------- Damn. I always forget about that. Spec URL: http://www.republika.pl/belegdol/rpmstuff/thinkfinger.spec SRPM URL: http://www.republika.pl/belegdol/rpmstuff/thinkfinger-0.2.2-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 00:28:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:28:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200028.l1K0SFfj024218@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |chris.stone at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Alias| |sear-media -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 00:32:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:32:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200032.l1K0WaeY024369@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 00:40:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:40:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200040.l1K0ejqH024678@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-19 19:40 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > I can't say for sure, but perhaps this helps: > > $ rpmlint -I invalid-soname > invalid-soname : > The soname of the library is neither of the form lib.so. or > lib-.so. > > The regexp used for the check is: > > ^lib.+(\.so\.[\.0-9]+|-[\.0-9]+\.so)$ > > Someone more familiar with sonames should to comment on whether there's > something wrong with libexpect5.43.so. My guess would be no, don't change it, > it's just unusual - cases like that are more often found in form like > libexpect5-43.so or libexpect-5.43.so. Perhaps ask upstream what they think and > if they'd like to change towards a more usual looking sonames for future releases? The libfoo..so format is common for Tcl extensions (see Tcl and Tk), but doesn't seem to be used much elsewhere. As mentioned in comment #4, packages that wish to link against libexpect often use the -lexpect5.43 in order to guarantee a specific version. This seems to be historical cruft that never got replaced with a better alternative, and now 'libfoo..so is common enough that I expect other things might break if it's changed now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 00:55:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:55:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200055.l1K0tjEf025351@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:12:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:12:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200112.l1K1CoXi026174@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-19 20:12 EST ------- After actually reading CVSAdminProcedure *sigh*, I realize my request was somewhat botched (yet completed--thanks!) and that I could have requested this at the same time: Please branch for FC-5, FC-6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:15:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:15:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200115.l1K1FBDa026225@bugzilla.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: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:17:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:17:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200117.l1K1HXIK026309@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:21:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:21:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222374] Review Request: paprefs - Management tool for PulseAudio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200121.l1K1LZS7026501@bugzilla.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: paprefs - Management tool for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222374 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-19 20:21 EST ------- Why was this added to the CVS admin requests, even though this package is not approved? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:25:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:25:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219972] Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200125.l1K1PiHM026797@bugzilla.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: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library Alias: poker-network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:25:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:25:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229123] Review Request: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200125.l1K1PqCo026821@bugzilla.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: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229123 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:31:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:31:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180897] Review Request: heartbeat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200131.l1K1V7dv027266@bugzilla.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: heartbeat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180897 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-19 20:31 EST ------- Why is fedora-cvs set to ? It is unclear. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:32:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:32:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219104] Review Request: mussh - Multihost SSH wrapper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200132.l1K1WDx4027341@bugzilla.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: mussh - Multihost SSH wrapper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219104 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:33:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:33:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200133.l1K1X27h027403@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:34:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:34:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200134.l1K1YoHr027581@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-19 20:34 EST ------- Why is fedora-cvs set to ? Your request is unclear. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:45:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:45:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200145.l1K1j5rX028144@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |63778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 01:53:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:53:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180897] Review Request: heartbeat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200153.l1K1rrnn028516@bugzilla.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: heartbeat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180897 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-19 20:53 EST ------- See comment #46. The current maintainer is going to orphan this package, and I said I would take over maintainership. This requires changes to owners.list. -Fedora Extras|heartbeat|Heartbeat subsystem for High-Availability Linux|joost.soeterbroek at gmail.com|extras-qa at fedoraproject.org| +Fedora Extras|heartbeat|Heartbeat subsystem for High-Availability Linux|kevin at tummy.com|extras-qa at fedoraproject.org| Sorry if I was unclear. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 02:02:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:02:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200202.l1K22I66028867@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-19 21:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > The use of %{_libdir} looks ok, but the backwards-compatible link is still wrong: > > cd %{_datadir} > ln -s %{name}%{majorver} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}%{majorver} > > This creates the same recursive link: > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 2007-02-15 11:47 /usr/lib/tcl8.4 -> tcl8.4 Additionally, the 'cd %{_datadir}' changes the current working directory. The sed command shortly after makes use of $PWD when modifying the tclConfig.sh file: sed -i -e "s|$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/unix|%{_libdir}|; s|$RPM_BUILD_ROOT|%{_includedir}/%{name}-private|" $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}Config.sh This results in an unusable tclConfig.sh file because the paths to the header files still use the build directory on the build server. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 02:37:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:37:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225075] Review Request: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200237.l1K2b5xb030195@bugzilla.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: ntfs-config - A front-end to Enable/Disable write support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225075 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 02:41:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:41:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200241.l1K2fA1B030367@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-19 21:41 EST ------- About the license, the FSF recommends against using "MIT" because that institution has used many licenses. (The Expat license is also referred to as "MIT", but it's not the same thing.) It's better to use "X11" in that case. The executable documentation is gone now, and the errant dependencies are gone as well. Either way of setting DESTDIR seems fine to me, but you've already changed it to the more conventional method so that's fine. So really I'd say to just set the License: to X11 and this package is done. There's no need to hold things up for that, so I'll ack this now. But it would be good to look into the source of those unused-direct-shlib-dependency warnings at some point. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 02:42:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:42:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200242.l1K2gZvR030468@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|63778, 163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 02:47:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:47:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200247.l1K2lrUc030716@bugzilla.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: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 ------- Additional Comments From kevin.kofler at chello.at 2007-02-19 21:47 EST ------- > Strigi also optionally depends on dbus-qt; but at the time I first packaged > and put it up, dbus-qt was not available in fedora (devel) repo. Now that it > (dbus-qt) is available, I'll consider adding it as buildrequire. dbus-qt is for Qt 3, if you mean the Qt 4 D-Bus bindings, these are part of the qt4 package. Also, doesn't Strigi also include a KDE 3 frontend? Why is there none of the KDE 3 (nor Qt 3) libs in the BuildRequires? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 02:49:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:49:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200249.l1K2nx7e030861@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-19 21:49 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 82c3b74c369fc231379d48af9e8ff851 thinkfinger-0.2.2.tar.gz 82c3b74c369fc231379d48af9e8ff851 thinkfinger-0.2.2.tar.gz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Minor: The Source URL doesn't seem to work here... http://downloads.sourceforge.net/thinkfinger/thinkfinger-0.2.2.tar.gz does seem to work. Not sure if that will work everywhere given sourceforge. 2. Would it be worth filing a RFE against pam to include the line needed in /etc/pam.d/system-auth? It should ignore it if the module isn't available I think, and will only work for users that setup a fingerprint. Perhaps something to think about when this package is more mature. Works great for me here on a fc6 laptop. I don't see any blockers here... you can change the source URL if you like when you check it in, or leave it as is. This package is APPROVED. Don't forget to close this package review request NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure for new package import procedures. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 02:55:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:55:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200255.l1K2tL1x031128@bugzilla.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: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 ------- Additional Comments From kevin.kofler at chello.at 2007-02-19 21:55 EST ------- Oh, if the reason was that the KDE 3 frontend needs the Qt 3 dbus-qt, then the puzzle pieces match up. ;-) Still, now that dbus-qt is available again, it can probably be enabled. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 02:57:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:57:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217654] Review Request: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200257.l1K2vBt1031211@bugzilla.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: TMDA - Tagged Message Delivery Agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217654 bjohnson at symetrix.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 03:06:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:06:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219972] Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200306.l1K365sB031428@bugzilla.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: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library Alias: poker-network https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-19 22:06 EST ------- Imported and built on FC-5/6/7. Thanks to everyone who helped out in this review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 03:06:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:06:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200306.l1K36e0o031466@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 Bug 222612 depends on bug 219972, which changed state. Bug 219972 Summary: Review Request: poker-network - A poker server, client and abstract user interface library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219972 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 03:06:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:06:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200306.l1K36t9x031487@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-19 22:06 EST ------- I don't know about www package, however, according to the section "Web Applications" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines : ---------------------------------------------------- Web applications packaged in Fedora should put their content into /usr/share/%{name} and NOT into /var/www/. This is done because: * /var is supposed to contain variable data files and logs. /usr/share is much more appropriate for this. * Many users already have content in /var/www, and we do not want any Fedora package to step on top of that. * /var/www is no longer specified by the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ----------------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 03:10:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:10:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200310.l1K3AeNa031617@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-19 22:10 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: poker2d Short Description: GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Owners: chris.stone at gmail.com Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: loic at gnu.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 03:18:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:18:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198839] Review Request: sear - WorldForge client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200318.l1K3Iltq032066@bugzilla.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: sear - WorldForge client Alias: sear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-19 22:18 EST ------- Imported and built. Many thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 03:18:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:18:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200318.l1K3IxTX032092@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 Bug 227873 depends on bug 198839, which changed state. Bug 198839 Summary: Review Request: sear - WorldForge client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198839 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 03:19:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:19:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200319.l1K3JA2F032124@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-19 22:19 EST ------- branched -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 03:55:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:55:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225299] Merge Review: automake15 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200355.l1K3tSsK001688@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake15 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225299 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-19 22:55 EST ------- rpmbuild trashing config.guess and config.sub (c.f. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296#c3) also shows effect here: It causes the config.guess/config.sub being distributed though the automake15 package to be replaced. Instead of the ancient versions dated 2001- contained in the automake-1.5 tarball, the resulting rpm contains the a bit less ancient versions being distributed by rpm (2003- on FC6). IMO, automake15 should either ship the original version from the automake-1.5 tarball or an up-to-date version of config.guess/config.sub (from gnu.org). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 04:42:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:42:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226494] Merge Review: tk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200442.l1K4gYXj004728@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226494 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wart at kobold.org Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 04:52:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:52:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226494] Merge Review: tk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200452.l1K4qI8E005407@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226494 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|wart at kobold.org |mmaslano at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-19 23:52 EST ------- rpmlint output: E: tk invalid-soname /usr/lib/libtk8.4.so libtk8.4.so As noted in the Tcl merge review, this is a historical oddity that would probably break lots of stuff if changed. The rpmlint warning can be ignored. W: tk dangerous-command-in-%pre rm It appears that the %pre script attempts to remove a link named /usr/{lib,lib64}/tk8.4. Why does it do this? Is this an attempt to clean up a link that was erroneously made in a previous version of Tk? GOOD ==== * Package named appropriately * Sources matches upstream * Spec file legible and in Am. English * BSD license ok, license file included * Build dependencies ok * No locales * No need for a .desktop file * ldconfig called correctly for libraries in %{_libdir} * Not relocatable * No duplicate %files * No need for -doc subpackage * headers and unversioned .so files in -devel subpackage MUSTFIX ======= * The 'URL:' tag is the -devel package description is redundant; the url defaults to the one specified for the main package. * As mentioned in comment #1, the /usr/share/tk8.4 directory is unowned. The patch in comment #1 will fix it, and simplify the %files section. * Mixed use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Choose either one and use it consistently. * Move the %{_mandir}/mann/* man pages out of the -devel subpackage and into the main package; these are man pages for the script-level API, not the C-level API. The %{_mandir}/man3/* man pages can remain in the -devel subpackage. * The TOPDIR=$PWD at the top of %build is unnecessary. Remove it. NOTES ===== * package does not currently build because Tcl is not providing the private header files in /usr/include/tcl-private. This is a bug in the tcl package, not tk. * The summary shouldn't contain the package name. You should drop the 'Tk' from the summary and capitalize the 'g': Graphical toolkit for the Tcl scripting language -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 04:55:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200455.l1K4thMd005629@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 05:29:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:29:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222374] Review Request: paprefs - Management tool for PulseAudio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200529.l1K5TeoL006683@bugzilla.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: paprefs - Management tool for PulseAudio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222374 ------- Additional Comments From eric.moret at epita.fr 2007-02-20 00:29 EST ------- The whole process has been a bit confusing to me as well! I initially inquired for a sponsorship for the paprefs package but was instead granted it for alsa- plugins (Bug #222248). However I am not the assignee on that specific bug, so I can't do much with it. Anyways, it was my intend to respect the workflow and wait until I get this package reviewed before submitting it in CVS. Do you think you could spare a few cycles in a review of the paprefs package? If not I can just remove that CVS admin request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 05:32:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:32:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199682] Review Request: postgresql-dbi-link - Partial implementation of the SQL/MED portion of the SQL:2003 specification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200532.l1K5W1RC006755@bugzilla.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: postgresql-dbi-link - Partial implementation of the SQL/MED portion of the SQL:2003 specification https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199682 ------- Additional Comments From devrim at commandprompt.com 2007-02-20 00:31 EST ------- Sorry for the delay -- I just forgot this. I just added the dist tag. The comment 2 in #21 broke package build... Here is the new spec: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/dbi-link/postgresql-dbi-link.spec Here is the new SRPM: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/dbi-link/postgresql-dbi-link-2.0.0-2.src.rpm Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 05:47:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:47:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200547.l1K5larU007050@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-20 00:47 EST ------- Branched and built for devel, fc[56]. Thanks for the review! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 05:48:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:48:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228627] Review Request: perl-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200548.l1K5m8Yb007063@bugzilla.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-Acme-Damn - 'Unbless' Perl objects https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228627 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 06:17:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:17:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200617.l1K6HnoO007659@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 01:17 EST ------- Moreover: This package tries to install some text files (such as chtml files), image files, etc.. and keeping timestmaps on these files are usually recommended ("Timestamps" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines) Changing "install" to "install -p" in Makefile or something usually resolves this issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 06:41:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:41:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200641.l1K6fxrG008265@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 01:41 EST ------- koji package seems to require rpm-python (from /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/koji/__init__.py: says "import rpm"), however, the requirement is missing. ---------------------------------------- [tasaka1 at localhost noarch]$ rpm -qp --requires koji-0.9.5-6.fc6_LC.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/python config(koji) = 0.9.5-6.fc6_LC python(abi) = 2.5 python-krbV >= 1.0.13 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 ---------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 06:52:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:52:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 204495] Review Request: perl-GStreamer - GStreamer Perl module In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200652.l1K6qdi3008525@bugzilla.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-GStreamer - GStreamer Perl module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204495 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-20 01:52 EST ------- So... After poking around with various patches, etc, to remove tests failing under mock, I've just wrapped "make test" with a %{?_with_network_tests:... construct. The rpm builds & tests just fine for me outside of mock, and is usable; it just seems that there's not enough of an environment under a mock build for the module to sucessfully test itself. I've commited changes; this package is (finally!) built in extras for fc5->devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 08:45:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:45:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200845.l1K8j6Gl011704@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-20 03:45 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail-2.2.2-7.fc6.src.rpm * Tue Feb 20 2007 Bernard Johnson 2.2.2-7 - make macro tests a little more readable - change dbmail-database to dbmail-database-driver; more descriptive - reduce gmime reqs to 2.1.19 - specify sqlite req at 3 or greater -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 09:07:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:07:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225983] Merge Review: less In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200907.l1K97Gwi013952@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: less https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225983 ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-20 04:07 EST ------- Thanks. You are right permmissions are changed in less-394-9.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 09:25:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:25:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200925.l1K9PqC5015185@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-20 04:25 EST ------- I would like an FC-6 branch to be added for emacs-nxml-mode please. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 09:28:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:28:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228475] Review Request: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200928.l1K9SNpY015322@bugzilla.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: hunspell-fr - French hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228475 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-20 04:28 EST ------- 27896 (hunspell-fr): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 09:29:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:29:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228481] Review Request: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200929.l1K9TUq4015392@bugzilla.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: hunspell-hu - Hungarian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228481 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-20 04:29 EST ------- 27897 (hunspell-hu): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 09:35:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228483] Review Request: hunspell-it - Italian hunspell dictionaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200935.l1K9ZB3W015790@bugzilla.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: hunspell-it - Italian hunspell dictionaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228483 caolanm at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From caolanm at redhat.com 2007-02-20 04:34 EST ------- 27898 (hunspell-it): Build on target fedora-development-extras succeeded. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 09:35:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:35:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702200935.l1K9ZOP8015817@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 belegdol at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From belegdol at gmail.com 2007-02-20 04:35 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: thinkfinger Short Description: A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader Owners: belegdol at gmail.com Branches: FC-6 FC-5 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 09:45:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:45:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] New: Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine 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=229319 Summary: Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: faucamp at csir.co.za QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/dekorator.spec SRPM URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/dekorator-0.3-1.src.rpm Description: deKorator is a window decoration engine for KDE. deKorator takes several user-defined images and presents them as a window decoration. It loads its images from a user-defined directory (similar to iceWM), thus everything is themeable in no time and no programming knowledge is needed. Package builds in mock (fc6/i386) and on x86_64. rpmlint gives: W: dekorator file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dekorator-0.3/themes/ugly-theme.tar.gz -- this is because the file is a tarball (its an example/tutorial theme for dekorator) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:05:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:05:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229321] New: Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL 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=229321 Summary: Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: devrim at commandprompt.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/pgpool-II.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpool-II-1.0.2-1.src.rpm Description: pgpool-II is a connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL. pgpool-II runs between PostgreSQL's clients(front ends) and servers (backends). A PostgreSQL client can connect to pgpool-II as if it were a standard PostgreSQL server. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:07:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229321] Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201007.l1KA7EiP017504@bugzilla.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: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 devrim at commandprompt.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora_requires_release_note | |+, fedora-review+, fedora- | |cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:12:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:12:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229322] New: Review Request: pgpool-II : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure 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=229322 Summary: Review Request: pgpool-II : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: devrim at commandprompt.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpool-ha.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpool-ha-1.0.0-2.src.rpm Description: Pgpool-HA combines pgpool with heartbeat. Pgpool is a replication server of PostgreSQL and makes reliability, but the pgpool server is always a single point failure. Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to eliminate this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:14:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:14:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229322] Review Request: pgpool-II : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201014.l1KAEO9d017860@bugzilla.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: pgpool-II : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229322 devrim at commandprompt.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora_requires_release_note | |+, fedora-review+, fedora- | |cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:22:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229323] New: Review Request: PgpoolAdmin - web-based pgpool administration 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=229323 Summary: Review Request: PgpoolAdmin - web-based pgpool administration Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: devrim at commandprompt.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpoolAdmin.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpoolAdmin-1.0.0-5.src.rpm Description: The pgpool Administration Tool is management tool of pgpool-II. It is possible to monitor, start, stop pgpool and change settings of pgpool-II. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:24:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:24:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201024.l1KAODEr018468@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-20 05:24 EST ------- Thanks for the review! On buildroots we recently voted against that buildroot and currently I'm trying to get the mandatory insanity of the guidelines, so let's keep it open for now, I hope for the best ;) On the license: There is a COPYING file that explicitely states > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 2, June 1991 And the README says > libcdaudio is distributed under the GNU Library General Public > License, included in this package under the top level source directory > in the file COPYING. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:50:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:50:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201050.l1KAoHK0020831@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rc040203 at freenet.de |nobody at fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:51:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:51:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201051.l1KApTrl020947@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rc040203 at freenet.de |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag| |needinfo? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:52:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:52:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225880] Merge Review: hal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201052.l1KAqUZm021055@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225880 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rc040203 at freenet.de |nobody at fedoraproject.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:56:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:56:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 176712] Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201056.l1KAuLAd021355@bugzilla.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: i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176712 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CANTFIX ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-20 05:56 EST ------- No feedback for > 1 year. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:56:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:56:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197974] Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201056.l1KAuWLj021384@bugzilla.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: Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines Alias: FE-GUIDELINES https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197974 Bug 197974 depends on bug 176712, which changed state. Bug 176712 Summary: Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176712 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |CANTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:57:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:57:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 176697] Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-binutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201057.l1KAvLuO021465@bugzilla.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: i386-rtems4.7-binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176697 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CANTFIX ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-20 05:57 EST ------- No feedback > 1 year. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:57:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:57:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197974] Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201057.l1KAvWi9021479@bugzilla.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: Tracking bug for reviews stalled pending the adoption of guidelines Alias: FE-GUIDELINES https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197974 Bug 197974 depends on bug 176697, which changed state. Bug 176697 Summary: Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176697 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |CANTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 10:57:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:57:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 176712] Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201057.l1KAvqcU021499@bugzilla.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: i386-rtems4.7-gcc-newlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176712 Bug 176712 depends on bug 176697, which changed state. Bug 176697 Summary: Review Request: i386-rtems4.7-binutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176697 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |CANTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 11:01:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:01:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222521] Review Request: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201101.l1KB1ucu021699@bugzilla.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: IceWM - Lightweight Window Manager. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222521 gilboad at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From gilboad at gmail.com 2007-02-20 06:01 EST ------- Hello all. Sorry the late reply. 1.3.0 seems to suffer from a lack of documentation (on what changed between 1.2.30 and 1.3.x) which is not very reassuring. In my view, people that require IceWM (for old machines, server) will most likely require a stable DE instead of a cutting edge one. According to the owner's list, while not longer maintained upstream, imlib, gtk+ and glib are all actively maintained; hopefully, they'll remain active long enough for 1.3.x to mature. - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 11:02:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:02:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222523] Review Request:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201102.l1KB2kSW021764@bugzilla.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:gmrun - A lightweight "Run program" window with TAB completion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222523 gilboad at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From gilboad at gmail.com 2007-02-20 06:02 EST ------- Done. Thanks for the review. - Gilboa -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 11:10:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:10:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225299] Merge Review: automake15 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201110.l1KBAN3T022015@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake15 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225299 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-20 06:10 EST ------- automake15-1.5-19 uses ./configure instead of %configure. Maybe I'll replace config.{guess,sub} with more recent ones when I have some spare time as I need to do a test build of some packages then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 11:29:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201129.l1KBTok3022803@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-20 06:29 EST ------- Matt? What is the status of this package? The package doesn't seem be imported into FE's cvs, yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 11:30:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:30:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201130.l1KBUvtY022845@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 jnovy at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-20 06:30 EST ------- Yes, I tried to build the rawhide libusb on FC6 and it failed in the documentation generation phase because of some jade inconsistency. The question is whether this is related to merge review as we focus on F7 here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 11:31:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:31:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201131.l1KBVpM0022915@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-20 06:31 EST ------- > > > Requires(post): grep, /sbin/install-info, coreutils > > > I am not sure that coreutils in Requires(post) makes sense... > > Depending on itself: Er.. can you be more specific? > The build is depending on coreutils commands, like mkdir Are we talking about BuildRequires tags or Requires tags? Please be specific with the changes you'd like me to make -- also it would help if you number them. :-) > There is still one /usr/bin: > for i in env cut; do ln -sf ../../bin/$i $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin; done Take a look at the wider picture there: we are making compatibility symlinks for binaries that used to be in /usr/bin but are now in /bin. We explicitly know from the history of the packages where these binaries used to be. Changing a variable is not going to change that. Changing /usr/bin here to be %{_bindir} would be incorrect. > remove / in RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir} Fixed. > Also I don't think that /etc/profile.d/ content should be > (noreplace) and I even think that making it %(config) is dubious. Fixed. Tagged and built as 6.7-8.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 11:39:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:39:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201139.l1KBdDjJ023190@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-20 06:39 EST ------- Sorry, I don't have a rawhide system installed. => Somebody else will have to take over the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 11:45:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:45:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226502] Merge Review: transfig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201145.l1KBj1cw023434@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: transfig https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226502 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |209865 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 11:48:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:48:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201148.l1KBmHFQ023540@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-20 06:48 EST ------- Ralf, thanks for your comments and review. Maybe mock will help you here to do a rawhide build if you are still interested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 11:58:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:58:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201158.l1KBw7O1023929@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-20 06:58 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148408) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148408&action=view) Patch implementing most of the following review suggestions Review to follow shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 12:00:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:00:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201200.l1KC0SIJ023998@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-20 07:00 EST ------- Review: ======= - rpmlint output already covered in Comment #2 - package and spec naming OK - package generally meets guidelines - license is "Sendmail", not listed on FSF "list of licenses" page but sendmail *is* listed in the FSF directory of free software (http://directory.fsf.org/sendmail.html) - license correctly tagged in spec but license text needs to be packaged - spec written in English but legibility could be improved - sources match upstream - package builds OK on i386 and x86_64 in mock for rawhide - buildreqs OK - no locale data included - no shared libraries included - not relocatable - no directory ownership problems - no permissions problems - %clean section present and correct - macro usage is reasonably consistent - code, not content - large docs in -doc subpackage - docs don't affect runtime - header files and static libraries included in -devel subpackage (no upstream support for dynamic libraries) - no pkgconfig files - devel package has proper versioned dependency on main package - no libtool archives - not a GUI app, no desktop file needed - scriptlets are complex, but well-tested - all subpackages have proper versioned dependencies on main package Needs Work: * LICENSE file must be included as %doc in the main package I think. I'd also suggest moving FAQ, KNOWNBUGS, README, RELEASE_NOTES in the same way * non-standard buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root Guidelines now mandate: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * directory creation near the top of %install not using the same macros as later parts of %install Suggestions: * Group: for devel package should be Development/Libraries I think * %post script could return non-zero exit code - add "exit 0" at end? * symlinks for the sendmail-specific versions of files managed using alternatives should point to the sendmail-specific targets rather than the generic targets, i.e. /usr/bin/mailq.sendmail -> ../../usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/bin/newaliases.sendmail -> ../../usr/sbin/sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail -> ../sbin/sendmail should instead be: /usr/bin/mailq.sendmail -> ../../usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail /usr/bin/newaliases.sendmail -> ../../usr/sbin/sendmail.sendmail /usr/lib/sendmail.sendmail -> ../sbin/sendmail.sendmail * all of the alternatives-managed files should be "provided" by sendmail. Currently, the following are provided: %{_sbindir}/sendmail %{_bindir}/mailq %{_bindir}/newaliases %{_bindir}/rmail %{_mandir}/man1/mailq.1.gz %{_mandir}/man1/newaliases.1.gz %{_mandir}/man5/aliases.5.gz Also needed are: /usr/lib/sendmail %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/smtp %{_mandir}/man8/sendmail.8.gz * general legibility improvements: - group the RPM tags at the top of the spec into general, build-time, and run-time sections - extra comments, particularly in %install - dispense with here documents - consistent indentation - replace initdir with prefdefined initrddir macro - use the "symlinks" program to fix up symlinks rather than the scripted routine that figures out how deep in the hierarchy a particular target directory is * removal of old cruft - the symbols _FFR_WORKAROUND_BROKEN_NAMESERVERS, _FFR_SMTP_SSL, _FFR_BLOCK_PROXIES, _FFR_UNSAFE_SASL, _FFR_MILTER_ROOT_UNSAFE no longer appear in the sendmail source and hence can be removed from the spec - the MySQL stuff in the spec appears to be there to support building with a patch maintained outside of the upstream sendmail source: http://www.palsenberg.com/index.php/plain/projects/sendmail_mysql_map_class This patch is not included in the Fedora package so why is the rest of the mysql support included? * addition of old cruft - if %{old_setup} is supported, include the aliases file so that just changing the macro value and rebuilding the spec will work. Otherwise, drop %{old_setup} altogether. * is it worth packaging /usr/share/sendmail-cf/cf/README ? * macro usage: - should /etc/alises be %{_sysconfdir}/aliases ? - should /etc/mail be %{_sysconfdir}/mail ? - should /etc/pam.d be %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d ? - should /etc/smrsh be %{_sysconfdir}/smrsh ? - should /var/spool be %{_localstatedir}/spool ? - files are installed to macro-ised directories in %install but the %files list has hardcoded directory names like /usr/bin * timestamps - I suggest trying to preserve all timestamps in upstream files that get packaged * scripted edits are done in %install using a mixture of perl and sed scripts, though they're all just straightforward search and replace changes. Best to just use sed for that. * the alternatives call in %post assumes that manpages are compressed using gzip, and will fail if for instance the buildsystem is configured to use bzip2 instead (or no compression). I think it's best to make the same assumptions everywhere, so I'd either (a) make the %post script very clever so it detects the manpage filenames (hard), or (b) hardcode the .gz extension for manpages in the %files list so that package build will fail on such systems. * Many of the %attr references in the %files list are redundant and could be removed. * The current %post script clobbers my access database every time I upgrade the sendmail package, because I have tweaked /etc/mail/Makefile to create the access.db from the concatenation of two files, /etc/mail/access and /etc/mail/access.shared. The %post script creates a new /etc/mail/access.db from /etc/mail/access, which loses the bulk of my entries. I would like to propose that if /usr/bin/make is installed, the /etc/mail/Makefile is used to generate the updated databases, else revert to using the original direct call to makemap. I'd also like to see the conditional build options (SASL1/SASL2/TLS etc.) reworked to use rpmbuild's --with/--without options so that alternative builds can be done straight from the SRPM without tweaking the spec file itself. Let's leave that for now though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 12:02:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:02:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201202.l1KC2jDZ024137@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|paul at city-fan.org |twoerner at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 12:06:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:06:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201206.l1KC6ikN024381@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 07:06 EST ------- Note: I don't understand how to use this at all!! * Parallel provides v.s. Requirement - Well, generally I don't know how other people try to resolve this. Main package requires one "-database-driver" package and there are 3 package which provides this package (BTW "dbmail-database-driver-driver" on -mysql package is a typo, isn't it?). Then: ------------------------------------------------------- [root at localhost ~]# yum install dbmail Loading "installonlyn" plugin Setting up Install Process Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Parsing package install arguments Resolving Dependencies Dependencies Resolved ============================================================================= Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================= Installing: dbmail i386 2.2.2-7.1.fc7 LOCAL 325 k Installing for dependencies: dbmail-mysql i386 2.2.2-7.1.fc7 LOCAL 16 k mysql-server i386 5.0.33-1.fc7 development 10 M Transaction Summary ============================================================================= Install 3 Package(s) Update 0 Package(s) Remove 0 Package(s) ------------------------------------------------------- i.e. "yum install dbmail" always try to install "dbmail-mysql" because on using yum the shorter name package, and the alphabetically prior package (if name length is same) wins yum game. Well, for people who want to use postgresql-based dbmail, he/she can do this by explicitly directing -pgsql package, i.e. ------------------------------------------------------ [root at localhost ~]# yum install dbmail dbmail-pgsql Loading "installonlyn" plugin Setting up Install Process Setting up repositories Reading repository metadata in from local files Parsing package install arguments Resolving Dependencies Dependencies Resolved ============================================================================= Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================= Installing: dbmail i386 2.2.2-7.1.fc7 LOCAL 325 k dbmail-pgsql i386 2.2.2-7.1.fc7 LOCAL 16 k Installing for dependencies: postgresql-server i386 8.2.3-2.fc7 development 4.1 M Transaction Summary ============================================================================= Install 3 Package(s) Update 0 Package(s) Remove 0 Package(s) ----------------------------------------------------------- Anyway main package requires -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package and I think this must explicitly selected by the sysadmin who want to use this. So: I think it is better that * -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package does not provide -database-driver package * main package does not require -database-driver package If do so, "yum install dbmail" only installs dbmail package * You write "README.fedora" which explains that to use dbmail on Fedora sysadmin has to install -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package by himself according to what database he wants to use. I think this is no problem because dbmail cannot be used only by just installing your binary rpms and needs some settings anyway. For two packages I reviewed, this situation occurred, and in both cases submitters added README.fedora to explain this. * Permission ------------------------------------------- E: dbmail non-readable /etc/dbmail.conf 0660 ------------------------------------------- - Just explain why * others should not able to read this file * and group should have write permission * Documentation - README.solaris should perhaps be removed (because we are not on solaris). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 12:18:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:18:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228243] Review Request: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201218.l1KCIp9R024822@bugzilla.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: eblook - EB and EPWING dictionary search program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228243 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-20 07:18 EST ------- Packages for devel, FC-5 and FC-6 have been built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 12:25:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:25:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201225.l1KCPLjN025198@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vixie-cron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-20 07:25 EST ------- That's not review as in guidelines, I'm waiting with fix for whole review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 12:43:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 07:43:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225302] Merge Review: automake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201243.l1KChLBN026137@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225302 karsten at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-20 07:43 EST ------- fixed in automake-1.10-4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 13:08:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:08:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201308.l1KD8ox3028382@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 08:08 EST ------- Well, for 0.2.20060218cvs: * cvs custom - Well, it is a custom when using CVS source to do in %prep stage: ---------------------------------------------------- find . -name CVS | sort -r | xargs rm -rf ---------------------------------------------------- to avoid cvs stuff accidentally installed. * BuildRequires: - On FC-devel, tcp_wrapper-devel is already out (anyway tcp_wrapper-devel is required by net-snmp-devel so this is redundant. However, it is not bad to write explicitly "tcp_wrapper-devel" BuildRequires because configure explicitly requires this for one of the options). You may write ---------------------------------------------------- %if 0%{?fedora} >= 7 Requires: tcp_wrappers-devel %else Requires: tcp_wrappers %endif ---------------------------------------------------- - BR: glib2-devel is redundant. gdome2-devel requires it. * Documentation-seeming files - By the way, are the files under /usr/share/ntop/html always required by this package? Well, I tested Ctrl-C interrupt for about 30 times, and this time segv didn't occur. I want to approve this package after the issues above are resolved and after I check some other issues (which takes some time to be checked). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 13:25:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:25:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201325.l1KDPnVS029165@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 08:25 EST ------- Well, * License - A issue is found. * html/domLib.js html/domTT.js - Apache License, Version 2.0, incompatible with GPL (according to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:11:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:11:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201411.l1KEBv51032276@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-20 09:11 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > Note: I don't understand how to use this at all!! > > * Parallel provides v.s. Requirement > - Well, generally I don't know how other people try to > resolve this. Let me tell you what little I know and maybe we can figure it out enough to make a usable package :) > Main package requires one "-database-driver" package > and there are 3 package which provides this package Yes, in order to be functional, at least one of them must be installed. > (BTW "dbmail-database-driver-driver" on -mysql package > is a typo, isn't it?). Then: yes! > i.e. "yum install dbmail" always try to install > "dbmail-mysql" because on using yum the shorter name > package, and the alphabetically prior package (if name > length is same) wins yum game. Yes, there's a big "discussion" on FE mailing list regarding this very issue. Take for example, "yum deplist redhat-lsb": dependency: /usr/sbin/sendmail provider: sendmail.i386 8.13.8-2 provider: postfix.i386 2:2.3.3-2 provider: esmtp.i386 0.5.1-13.fc6 provider: exim.i386 4.63-5.fc6 provider: ssmtp.i386 2.61-10.fc6 provider: ssmtp.i386 2.61-11.1.fc6 So now the Core and Extras are the same, guess what gets installed to replace sendmail by providing a dependency for /usr/sbin/sendmail..? EXIM! Now, I don't agree with changing sendmail by sheer chance, but other seem to think it's ok. But no one is suggesting taking the dependency out and having a sysadmin install whichever mta they want by hand. > Well, for people who want to use postgresql-based dbmail, he/she > can do this by explicitly directing -pgsql package, i.e. Exactly. > Anyway main package requires -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package and I think > this must explicitly selected by the sysadmin who want to use this. Yes, and here is where my example with sendmail is different. With sendmail, no matter which mta gets installed, it's expected that it will accept mail locally and attampt to deliver it - ie. it's functional out of the box. Dbmail can never be that because it requires a) database backend selection and b) configuration file setup, and c) database installation. These are not trivial things to do, and if you understand that, then package selection will not be a problem for you. However, I do see one added benefit of the requires/provides - and that is if you try to install just dbmail, it will force a driver to install, which may wake up a sysadmin to realize "oh, i have to select the driver for the database". Otherwise, if you just install dbmail and set the driver in the config file, when you start you just get a message like "/usr/lib/dbmail/libfoo.so was not found" and it dies, which doesn't tell you much. But then again, on the other hand it's possible to set the driver to mysql when pgsql is installed and get the same type message. > So: > I think it is better that > * -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package does not provide -database-driver package > * main package does not require -database-driver package > If do so, "yum install dbmail" only installs dbmail package So after reading my explanation if you still feel this is the right way, I'll go ahead and make that update. I don't feel strongly one way or another, I'm just trying to make sure we understand the consequences of either approach. > * You write "README.fedora" which explains that to use dbmail on Fedora > sysadmin has to install -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package by himself > according > to what database he wants to use. I think this is no problem > because dbmail cannot be used only by just installing your > binary rpms and needs some settings anyway. > > For two packages I reviewed, this situation occurred, and in both cases > submitters added README.fedora to explain this. This is a good idea reagardless of the approach. I'll do that. > * Permission > ------------------------------------------- > E: dbmail non-readable /etc/dbmail.conf 0660 > ------------------------------------------- > - Just explain why > * others should not able to read this file > * and group should have write permission it must be unreadable to others because it contains the database password and login, however it can be 640 or even 600 (it's owner=root, group=root). > * Documentation > - README.solaris should perhaps be removed (because we are not on solaris). I will remove that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:13:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:13:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201413.l1KED6Zs032374@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800 green at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2007-02-20 09:13 EST ------- One new little annoyance... # rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/emacs-bbdb-2.35-3.noarch.rpm W: emacs-bbdb no-version-in-last-changelog I'll go through the full review list on your next update, but I don't believe I can approve this until you've been sponsored for Fedora Extras. I've blocked this bugzilla on FE-NEEDSPONSOR for now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:16:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:16:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227230] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201416.l1KEGESv032709@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - contact management utility for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227230 green at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2007-02-20 09:16 EST ------- This was already submitted for review. See bugzilla 226800. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 226800 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:16:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:16:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201416.l1KEGFvv032721@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800 green at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonathan.underwood at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2007-02-20 09:16 EST ------- *** Bug 227230 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:16:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:16:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201416.l1KEGBTm032702@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-20 09:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16) > > * Permission > > ------------------------------------------- > > E: dbmail non-readable /etc/dbmail.conf 0660 > > ------------------------------------------- > > - Just explain why > > * others should not able to read this file > > * and group should have write permission > > it must be unreadable to others because it contains the database password and > login, however it can be 640 or even 600 (it's owner=root, group=root). I'm just going to make it 0600 in the next rel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:20:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:20:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225750] Merge Review: file In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201420.l1KEKN71000624@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225750 mbacovsk at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(jpmahowald at gmail.c | |om) ------- Additional Comments From mbacovsk at redhat.com 2007-02-20 09:20 EST ------- That should be fixed now. Current version is file-4.19-4.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:25:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:25:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225300] Merge Review: automake16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201425.l1KEPk5G000919@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225300 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-20 09:25 EST ------- please check automake16-1.6.3-9 or later as it has fixes for the most common review issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:37:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:37:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229342] New: Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4 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=229342 Summary: Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4 Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: steved at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/nfs4-acl-tools/nfs4-acl-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/nfs4-acl-tools/nfs4-acl-tools-0.2.0-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: This package contains commandline and GUI ACL utilities for the Linux NFSv4 client. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:38:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:38:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229342] Review Request: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201438.l1KEcY39001821@bugzilla.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: nfs4-acl-tools - ACL utilities for NFSv4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229342 steved at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 14:49:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:49:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225288] Merge Review: at In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201449.l1KEnYZw002663@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(mastahnke at gmail.co | |m) ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-20 09:49 EST ------- I use rpmlint and fix what I can. I can't change it in src.rpm wrong sources permission. rpmlint at-3.1.10-8.fc7.src.rpm W: at strange-permission atd.init 0775 W: at strange-permission test.pl 0755 In package are "strange" permission. I think they are ok, because at have special permission for using lock files, pam etc. rpmlint i386/at-3.1.10-8.fc7.i386.rpm E: at non-readable /etc/pam.d/atd 0640 E: at non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/at/spool 0700 E: at non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/at 0700 E: at non-readable /etc/at.deny 0600 W: at hidden-file-or-dir /var/spool/at/.SEQ E: at non-readable /var/spool/at/.SEQ 0600 E: at setuid-binary /usr/bin/at root 04755 E: at non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/at 04755 W: at dangerous-command-in-%post chown W: at service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/atd Should be fixed anything else? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:10:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:10:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227108] Review Request: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201510.l1KFAiEX004054@bugzilla.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: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227108 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:15:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201515.l1KFFHtO004332@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-20 10:15 EST ------- Now, things are getting interesting ... ATM, *-7.src.rpm doesn't fail in an fc6-mock, but it fails in a normal user environment ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:17:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201517.l1KFHPH1004426@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 10:17 EST ------- Well, then if you want to have 3 packages provide -database-driver package, then * Please write "README.fedora" including the following contents: - main package requires a package which provides "-database-driver" package - currently 3 package provide it. - sysadmin has to select which package to install according to what database he/she want to use - and anyway another settings are required (and the place where the instruction can be seen should be written) * Add to the description of main package like: "Please README.fedora for fedora specific issue" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:18:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:18:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201518.l1KFIfBK004603@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 10:18 EST ------- One more comment - Please include your name in README.fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:18:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:18:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201518.l1KFIufK004622@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-20 10:18 EST ------- http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/koji/koji-0.9.5-7.src.rpm - Move web files from /var/www to /usr/share - Use -p in install calls - Add rpm-python to requires for koji (note, this isn't pushed to master git yet, I need to review these changes with the other developers before pushing) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:21:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:21:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201521.l1KFLtoP004801@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-20 10:21 EST ------- /me suspects some jade config clashes caused by updates -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:23:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:23:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226494] Merge Review: tk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201523.l1KFNTr6005070@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226494 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-20 10:23 EST ------- > W: tk dangerous-command-in-%pre rm It should remove old directory before installation, if exists. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:26:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:26:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227095] Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201526.l1KFQO4n005538@bugzilla.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: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227095 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:32:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:32:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201532.l1KFWcGs006181@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-20 10:32 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > Thanks for the review! No problem, sorry it sat so long w/o any attention. > On buildroots we recently voted against that buildroot and currently I'm trying > to get the mandatory insanity of the guidelines, so let's keep it open for now, > I hope for the best ;) Hm... Talked to some FESCo folks, they say that the buildroot specified in the guidelines was accepted by FESCo via a vote at FUDCon as the standard for now, but with work that needs doing at the rpm level to properly address concerns. So for the moment, I'm told that it does have to be as specified... Who voted against it? > On the license: There is a COPYING file that explicitely states > > GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE > > Version 2, June 1991 > > And the README says > > > libcdaudio is distributed under the GNU Library General Public > > License, included in this package under the top level source directory > > in the file COPYING. I saw that the actual license file says v2, but that's the case with almost every GPL-licensed bits these days. My understanding from the FESCo folks I was talking to is that unless the author says v2 is explicitly required, to just keep the license field general, specifying just "GPL". Personally, I don't really care either way, just trying to follow the letter of the law, so to speak. (Though I like "GPLv2" better than "GPL2".) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:34:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:34:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201534.l1KFYTpZ006337@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-20 10:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #45) > find . -name CVS | sort -r | xargs rm -rf Forgot to put this back in when I switched back to CVS version. next rel. > * BuildRequires: > - On FC-devel, tcp_wrapper-devel is already out fixed next rel. > - BR: glib2-devel is redundant. gdome2-devel requires it. fixed next rel. > * Documentation-seeming files > - By the way, are the files under /usr/share/ntop/html always > required by this package? yes, they are used by the web server > Well, I tested Ctrl-C interrupt for about 30 times, and this > time segv didn't occur. good! > I want to approve this package after the issues above are > resolved and after I check some other issues (which takes some > time to be checked). I need to go back through it again as well and make sure some of the odd things I was seeing are no longer happending. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:37:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:37:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201537.l1KFbedj006692@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-20 10:37 EST ------- (In reply to comment #46) > Well, > * License > - A issue is found. > * html/domLib.js > html/domTT.js > - Apache License, Version 2.0, incompatible with GPL > (according to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) I'm looking into this. I was just about to contact the author, but it appears that these files are not actively used (ie. they are loaded into the html pages, but no functionality is used). If that is true, I'll see if I can patch them out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:41:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:41:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201541.l1KFfnIZ007038@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 mitr at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu |mitr at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mitr at redhat.com 2007-02-20 10:41 EST ------- Thanks. http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags says it should be assigned to me, so let's see what happens ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:41:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:41:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227102] Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201541.l1KFfw04007052@bugzilla.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: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227102 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-20 10:41 EST ------- > NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > > -- > $ rpmlint plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm > W: plexus-i18n mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 69) > (minor warnings, should be ok) That's strange. When I run rpmlint on plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm, I don't get this warning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:42:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:42:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201542.l1KFgTQN007100@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-20 10:42 EST ------- Forgot to mention that I didn't replaced the old spec but corrected it according to your suggestions. The reason is that I want to learn from my mistakes and don't want you to do my work ;) rpmlint has no errors at all on this new version on the src.rpm, the rpm or the debug-rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:48:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:48:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201548.l1KFmYnO007487@bugzilla.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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-20 10:48 EST ------- We found a work around for this dependency, I'm leaving this opened until we have maven2 built successfully, just to make sure we haven't miss anything. Once we have maven2 built, I will update and close it accordingly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:50:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:50:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225288] Merge Review: at In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201550.l1KFoUgu007596@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-20 10:50 EST ------- Let me offer some comments on the rpmlint output. W: at strange-permission atd.init 0775 W: at strange-permission test.pl 0755 Generally these aren't worth bothering with, but having a file group writable in your checkout could be problematic. I don't see that, but I think my umask doesn't allow it. Someone should try to understand where this is coming from. E: at non-readable /etc/pam.d/atd 0640 I think this is OK, albeit different from what most other packages do. (They use 0644). E: at non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/at/spool 0700 E: at non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/at 0700 E: at non-readable /etc/at.deny 0600 E: at non-readable /var/spool/at/.SEQ 0600 These are necessitated by security. W: at hidden-file-or-dir /var/spool/at/.SEQ That's just the file that at uses; it's OK for it to be hidden. E: at setuid-binary /usr/bin/at root 04755 E: at non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/at 04755 These are necessary. W: at dangerous-command-in-%post chown I'm not really sure why these are here as opposed to just being part of %files. Perhaps rpm would keep creating .SEQ.rpmnew files endlessly otherwise? If so then I think it's OK. W: at service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/atd It's allowable for a service to be on by default, especially in the case of a daemon that everyone expects to be there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:55:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:55:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227102] Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201555.l1KFtjjh007861@bugzilla.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: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227102 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-20 10:55 EST ------- Maybe it's different versions of rpmlint... here's what I'm using, for reference: $ rpmlint --version rpmlint version 0.79 Copyright (C) 1999-2006 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva and am still getting the warnings above on the updated SRPM: $ ls -alF plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm ; rpmlint plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1 nsantos nsantos 16437 Feb 20 10:48 plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-i18n non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-i18n mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 69) In any case, since the warnings are minor and you're not seeing them, I'm marking as fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 15:56:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:56:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227102] Review Request: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201556.l1KFuUfr007912@bugzilla.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: plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.3jpp - Plexus I18N Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227102 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 16:05:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:05:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201605.l1KG5Uj0008547@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 ------- Additional Comments From mlichvar at redhat.com 2007-02-20 11:05 EST ------- Thanks for the review. But I will stay with MIT license for now. There is only one package in Extras that has License: X11, and many have MIT. If you think this should be changed, please bring it up to the fedora list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 16:17:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:17:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201617.l1KGHaSj009279@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-20 11:17 EST ------- MIT isn't so much incorrect as it is ambiguous, but I can't fault you with wanting to stick with what other packages are using. We'll clear this up once and for all when we get down to the big license cleanup, perhaps in a few months. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 16:20:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:20:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201620.l1KGK4ZO009453@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From mgarski at post.pl 2007-02-20 11:19 EST ------- Spec URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/fonts-tibetan-dzongkha.spec SRPM URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/fonts-tibetan-dzongkha-0.0.20070220-1.src.rpm - Package rename Is fonts-tibetan-dzongkha also too long? I'm also outsider, but I would like to have dzongkha in name because fonts-tibetan could be confusing, like is this fonts are for Tibetan language or Tibetan script. What's your opinion? - Add Jomolhari font - Extend description section P.S Maybe fonts-tibetan-script is the right solution? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 16:19:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:19:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201619.l1KGJxEv009440@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 ------- Additional Comments From ajackson at redhat.com 2007-02-20 11:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > i would like to see #199381 fixed with this also Do we even have those packaged yet? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 16:30:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:30:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201630.l1KGUPnE010505@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 11:30 EST ------- Well, * License * www/static/js/jsolait/lib/iter.js - says this is GPL * Documentation * Add "Authors COPYING LGPL" to main package. Especially, including copyright document is rather mandatory (however copyright must be clarified) * Source * Where is the source? BTW during -6 and -7, source tarball seem to be silently changed without their version number unchanged... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 16:33:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:33:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201633.l1KGXiMB010740@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 ------- Additional Comments From matt at rudeserver.com 2007-02-20 11:33 EST ------- My apologies, I am currently hung up on the "Identify Yourself as the Owner of the Package". It seems that "CVSAdminProcedure" is different now than it was 2 weeks ago when I went out of town for a conference. At the time, I had to modify some wiki page to get the cvs directories built. Now I cannot find that wiki and this seems to be the first time I have seen the CVSAdminProcedure, which I did not do. Nevertheless, the cvs directories were created, and I have just imported the package, but I don't seem to have requested FC5 and FC6 branches. Is this something I need to do as a comment here? Or are FC5 and FC6 not applicable for development libraries? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 16:38:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:38:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201638.l1KGcEos011043@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-20 11:38 EST ------- fixed in sysklogd-1.4.1-47.fc7 2) I don't know, but upstream doesn't seem to be alive. 3) I think "no". I didn't find many "Require: logrotate" in spec files of packages, which rotate its files. 4e) I have renamed logrotate.d/syslog but not going to do the same for init.t/syslog. I'm worry it could make more problems. 5) What dist tag do you mean? 6) I'm not going to fix any of these. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 16:46:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:46:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229322] Review Request: pgpool-ha : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201646.l1KGkv1m011578@bugzilla.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: pgpool-ha : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229322 devrim at commandprompt.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: pgpool-II : |Review Request: pgpool-ha : |Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to |Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to |keep pgpool from being a |keep pgpool from being a |single point of failure |single point of failure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 16:51:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:51:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225656] Merge Review: cpio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201651.l1KGpEd2011799@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cpio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225656 pvrabec at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-20 11:51 EST ------- fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 16:53:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:53:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201653.l1KGrJP0011913@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jpo at di.uminho.pt ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-20 11:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > fixed in sysklogd-1.4.1-47.fc7 > 3) I think "no". I didn't find many "Require: logrotate" in spec files of > packages, which rotate its files. In the syslog-ng.spec there is a requirement for logrotate: syslog-ng installs a file in the /etc/logrotate.d directory which is owned by the logrotate package. $ rpm -qf /etc/logrotate.d/ logrotate-3.7.4-12.fc6 > 4e) I have renamed logrotate.d/syslog but not going to do the same for > init.t/syslog. I'm worry it could make more problems. The rename broke the usage of syslog-ng as a sysklogd replacement. Syslog-ng needs to ship the same file as sysklogd (same MD5 digest to avoid file conflicts): logrotate doesn't like that two different configuration scripts rotate the same log files. jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:00:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201700.l1KH0h5u012479@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |cgoorah at yahoo.com.au OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:02:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:02:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201702.l1KH29Zs012634@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-20 12:01 EST ------- Another improvement would be to preserve the files timestamps during installation, i.e., use install -p . jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:04:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:04:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225301] Merge Review: automake17 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201704.l1KH43aM012719@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake17 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225301 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-20 12:04 EST ------- automake17-1.7.9-8 has quite a few fixes, although self checks are currently disabled. I need to look at some failures when I have spare time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:07:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:07:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201707.l1KH7MqL012902@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-20 12:07 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148425) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148425&action=view) screenshot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:09:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:09:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201709.l1KH9Xwx013039@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-20 12:09 EST ------- First thing (kde thing), dekorator is useless _without_ the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}/kde3/*.la see screenshot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:10:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:10:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229243] Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201710.l1KHAQtU013106@bugzilla.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: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229243 ------- Additional Comments From gemi at bluewin.ch 2007-02-20 12:10 EST ------- rpmlint for compat-wxGTK26: W: compat-wxGTK26 invalid-license wxWidgets Library Licence - ok, this is commented in the spec E: compat-wxGTK26 obsolete-not-provided wxGTK E: compat-wxGTK26 obsolete-not-provided wxGTK-gl - ? rpmlint for compat-wxGTK26-devel: W: compat-wxGTK26-devel invalid-license wxWidgets Library Licence - ok E: compat-wxGTK26-devel obsolete-not-provided wxGTK-devel - ? E: compat-wxGTK26-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - annoying but irrelevant error W: compat-wxGTK26-devel no-documentation W: compat-wxGTK26-devel symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/wx-2.6-config /usr/lib/wx/config/gtk2-unicode-release-2.6 - this should be fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:21:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:21:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201721.l1KHL1iA013667@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-20 12:20 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/dbmail-2.2.2-8.fc6.src.rpm * Tue Feb 20 2007 Bernard Johnson 2.2.2-8 - change /etc/dbmail.conf to mode 0600 - remove README.solaris, create README.fedora - add ref to README.fedora in %%desc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:25:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:25:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229243] Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201725.l1KHPgJc013977@bugzilla.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: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229243 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-20 12:25 EST ------- > E: compat-wxGTK26 obsolete-not-provided wxGTK > E: compat-wxGTK26 obsolete-not-provided wxGTK-gl > E: compat-wxGTK26-devel obsolete-not-provided wxGTK-devel This is normal for compat-* packages. We create a new package namespace, which shall be separate from the wxGTK >= 2.8 packages, also with regard to how RPM handles upgrades of virtual packages. > W: compat-wxGTK26-devel symlink-should-be-relative > /usr/bin/wx-2.6-config /usr/lib/wx/config/gtk2-unicode-release-2.6 Will fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:31:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:31:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226704] Review Request: iasl - Intel acpi compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201731.l1KHVv1q014455@bugzilla.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: iasl - Intel acpi compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226704 gemi at bluewin.ch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gemi at bluewin.ch ------- Additional Comments From gemi at bluewin.ch 2007-02-20 12:31 EST ------- rpmlint: E: iasl description-line-too-long iasl compiles ASL (ACPI Source Language) into AML (ACPI Machine Language), which - reformat to use less than 70 chars, I guess W: iasl invalid-license Intel Software License Agreement W: iasl spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/iasl.1.gz - chmod 0644 I would also package the other utilities if possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:32:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:32:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201732.l1KHWHRV014519@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-20 12:32 EST ------- Strange... I actually packaged those at first, then removed them, and everything was working..? Probably didn't unload the old module in time. Ah well, reverting, thanks for the catch! :-) New build: Spec URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/dekorator.spec SRPM URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/dekorator-0.3-2.src.rpm Changes: - Added required libtool archives again -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:43:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:43:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201743.l1KHhpWb015226@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-20 12:43 EST ------- ==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ==== - rpmlint output W: sear-media hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/sear/sear-media-0.6/castle/.dot_it.sh.swp Looks like this file can safely be removed. - package named according to package naming guidelines - spec file name matches %{name} - package meets packaging guidelines - licensed with open source compatible license X license tag matches actual license - license file included in %doc - spec written in American english - spec file legible - sources match upstream c136577e5ca64dd39a91d47c0c4c2ba6 sear-media-20070206.tar.gz - package successfully compiles and builds on FC-6 x86_64 - all build dependencies listed in BR - no locales - no shared libraries - package is not relocatable X package does not own all directories it creates - no duplicates in %files - file permissions set properly - package contains proper %clean - macro usage consistent - package contains permissible content - no large documentation - files in %doc do not affect runtime - no header files or static libraries - no pkgconfig files - no library files with suffix - no need for devel subpackage - no libtool archives - not a GUI application - does not own files or directories owned by other packages ==== MUST FIX ==== - Remove .swp file found by rpmlint - LICENSING.txt is confusing. First it says the artwork is GPL, but then goes on to say that the actual license is modifable under the GFDL, and then they list sections of documentation which are clearly broilerplate sections in an unmodified license file, for example "Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES", and "modify this document" when the document itself is a license file. I guess this needs to be clarified with upstream? It seems they do not really care. I guess I also have to ask why you license this as just GPL instead of GPL/GFDL. - the package creates a directory "sear" under /usr/share which it does not own, nor does it pull in any packages which own this directory in Requries. - README and COPYING.txt probably dont need to be included twice in the file list, LICENSING.txt explicitly mentions "files under this directory" so I guess this has to be in both locations, however the license *is* modifyable under the GFDL... ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:47:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:47:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 181997] Review Request: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201747.l1KHlsVj015377@bugzilla.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: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181997 gemi at bluewin.ch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gemi at bluewin.ch ------- Additional Comments From gemi at bluewin.ch 2007-02-20 12:47 EST ------- Is gpc still developed or even maintained? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:53:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:53:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 190045] Review Request: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201753.l1KHrQ4Q015690@bugzilla.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: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190045 ------- Additional Comments From gemi at bluewin.ch 2007-02-20 12:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > So should ladspa own /usr/lib/ladspa, ladspa does own /usr/lib/ladspa > /usr/share/ladspa this should also be owned ladspa > and liblrdf own > /usr/share/ladspa/rdf? No, also to the ladspa package Maybe file a bug against ladspa, with a reference to this bug. > This package could require those packages. The only > weird thing is that apart from these directories, there are no other runtime > dependencies on those things. I think it is not reasonable for ladspa-caps-plugins to require ladspa. True, it doesn't really depend on it, but gives a certain consistency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:53:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:53:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 181997] Review Request: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201753.l1KHrYFc015704@bugzilla.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: gpc - The GNU Pascal compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181997 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-20 12:53 EST ------- It is most definitely still developed. There is, in fact, gcc 4.1.1 support there now, which I need to look into. It's pretty much always going lag gcc development as long as it's not part of the mainstream compiler source, but it's not difficult to build it as a separate compiler that's not linked to the system's gcc version. The spec already handles this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 17:54:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:54:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 190045] Review Request: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201754.l1KHsQ4P015755@bugzilla.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: caps - A set of audio plugins for LADSPA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190045 ------- Additional Comments From gemi at bluewin.ch 2007-02-20 12:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > I think it is not reasonable for ladspa-caps-plugins to require ladspa. I meant of course: not unreasonable -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:09:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:09:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201809.l1KI9DQ3016773@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 13:09 EST ------- One issue. * Source URL should be: http://www.dbmail.org/download/2.2/dbmail-2.2.2.tar.gz ------------------------------------------ This package (dbmail) is APPROVED by me. ------------------------------------------ Well, the process of importing new packages changed. Please recheck http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure from step 8. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:09:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:09:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201809.l1KI9oWE016887@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 13:09 EST ------- Oops.. I meant http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:09:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:09:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201809.l1KI9qNB016894@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-20 13:09 EST ------- thnx. Jose, all issues you metioned are fixed in sysklogd-1.4.1-48.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:14:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:14:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 180897] Review Request: heartbeat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201814.l1KIEj6R017294@bugzilla.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: heartbeat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180897 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:15:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:15:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223023] Review Request: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201815.l1KIF7G5017393@bugzilla.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: nxml-mode - Emacs package for editing XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223023 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:18:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:18:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201818.l1KIIEmF017566@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:23:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:23:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201823.l1KINt5C018079@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-20 13:23 EST ------- Francois, you didn't happen to be using kde-redhat's packages? (: If so, our kdelibs/kdebase include experimental patches to remove the necessity of .la files for runtime use. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:32:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:32:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225301] Merge Review: automake17 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201832.l1KIWrxU019001@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake17 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225301 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-20 13:32 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > automake17-1.7.9-8 has quite a few fixes, although self checks are currently > disabled. I need to look at some failures when I have spare time. Frankly speaking, I would not apply any fixes, but ship a plain vanilla FSF automake. automake-1.7.x is dead for years and anybody still using it deserves to feel the pain. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:34:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:34:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229322] Review Request: pgpool-ha : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201834.l1KIYN69019124@bugzilla.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: pgpool-ha : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229322 devrim at commandprompt.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora_requires_release_note| |+, fedora-review+, fedora- | |cvs+ | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:34:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:34:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229321] Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201834.l1KIYLIc019109@bugzilla.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: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 devrim at commandprompt.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora_requires_release_note| |+, fedora-review+, fedora- | |cvs+ | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:35:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:35:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201835.l1KIZuCD019236@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-20 13:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Francois, you didn't happen to be using kde-redhat's packages? Haha, busted. :-) Indeed this was the case. Rex and co, thanks a lot for kde-redhat - excellent stuff, that, and *ahem* I for one can vouch that your .la patches are working ;-). But thanks for pointing this out; I'll test my KDE packages on a "clean" Fedora system as well from now on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:40:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:40:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226704] Review Request: iasl - Intel acpi compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201840.l1KIecDg019527@bugzilla.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: iasl - Intel acpi compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226704 ------- Additional Comments From opensource at till.name 2007-02-20 13:40 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~tmaas/fedora/iasl.spec SRPM URL: http://www-users.kawo2.rwth-aachen.de/~tmaas/fedora/repo/iasl-20061109-2.src.rpm (In reply to comment #3) > rpmlint: > E: iasl description-line-too-long iasl compiles ASL (ACPI Source Language) into > AML (ACPI Machine Language), which > - reformat to use less than 70 chars, I guess Fixed, has to be less that 80 chars, it was excactly 80 chars. > W: iasl invalid-license Intel Software License Agreement See the comment in the spec file: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-January/msg00427.html > W: iasl spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/iasl.1.gz > - chmod 0644 fixed > I would also package the other utilities if possible. Do you want to do it or do you use the utitilities? I am not very keen to package them unless they are very needed. If you want to maintain iasl, you can have it. Actually I only wanted to include it to Extras because it is needed by virtualbox, but since I found out that virtualbox needs at least 2 more packages in fedora it exceeds the amount of work that I have free for this. So if you do not need iasl or the other contents of the tarball or want to maintain it, I will close this ticket, soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:41:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:41:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229377] New: Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents 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=229377 Summary: Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: Jerry.James at usu.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.cs.usu.edu/~jerry/Projects/RPMS/latexmk/latexmk.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cs.usu.edu/~jerry/Projects/RPMS/latexmk/latexmk-3.08n-1.src.rpm Description: Latexmk is a perl script for running LaTeX the correct number of times to resolve cross references, etc; it also runs auxiliary programs (bibtex, makeindex if necessary, and dvips and/or a previewer as requested). It has a number of other useful capabilities, for example to start a previewer and then run latex whenever the source files are updated, so that the previewer gives an up-to-date view of the document. This is my first package submission. I need a sponsor. This package produces no warnings from rpmlint. However, there is one issue that concerns me. The latexmk script looks in various unclean places for a global configuration file (see the definition of rc_system_files). If I am reading the FHS correctly, it should be looking for /etc/latexmk. On the other hand, I am not including a global configuration file in this package since the defaults are sane for a Fedora system. How should I handle this issue: ignore it, create an empty /etc/latexmk and patch the script to look there, something else? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:43:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:43:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229377] Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201843.l1KIhreH019716@bugzilla.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: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229377 Jerry.James at usu.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:44:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226338] Merge Review: PyQt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201844.l1KIi0m9019741@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: PyQt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226338 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|than at redhat.com |rdieter at math.unl.edu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:44:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:44:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226351] Merge Review: qt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201844.l1KIilZV019793@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: qt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226351 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|than at redhat.com |rdieter at math.unl.edu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:44:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:44:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201844.l1KIiwEg019815@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|than at redhat.com |rdieter at math.unl.edu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:45:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:45:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225256] Merge Review: arts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201845.l1KIjaPY019954@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: arts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225256 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|than at redhat.com |rdieter at math.unl.edu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:51:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:51:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201851.l1KIpWsw020501@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-20 13:51 EST ------- #001: You should explicitly require kdebase, since this package is useless without kwin. Requires: kdebase #002: other themes ?? On kcontrol, if I select dekorator, then Help, I see ****** In the package ****** deKorator comes with: * default-theme - Used by default, illustrates some of deKorator's features. * ugly-theme - It's purpose is to understand the way deKorator paints the decorations. * template-theme - this theme is meant to be a template theme for other themes,this theme features all possible buttons. * Bushido-Yellow-theme - shows how masking can be done. But your package is only shipping 2 themes: - default-theme and - template-theme #003: Below that same page (help), there is a typo "Allways", it should be Always. Patch as appropriate and inform upstream. #004: Is there any reason why you are shipping ugly-theme.tar.gz at /usr/share/doc/dekorator-0.3/themes/ ? #005 I've also noticed that /usr/share/doc/dekorator-0.3/themes/deKhelp.xhtml is a duplicate to the "help" page provided by the kcontrol module. #006: For the very first time, one select and use dekorator, he/she will be frameless. Users will freak out. Can you do the necessary so that a default theme might be chosen by default. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 18:59:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:59:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201859.l1KIxR49021485@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 ------- Additional Comments From belegdol at gmail.com 2007-02-20 13:59 EST ------- Can I import it now, or shall I wait until rawhide defrosts? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:01:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:01:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227099] Review Request: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201901.l1KJ15rO021575@bugzilla.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: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227099 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:08:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:08:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229321] Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201908.l1KJ8sqC022094@bugzilla.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: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-20 14:08 EST ------- Okay, ran through the spec file, and found a fair number of things that I believe need fixing. I often prefer to make my suggestions in the form of direct spec file changes that can then be diffed versus the original spec. My altered spec is here: http://people.redhat.com/jwilson/packages/postgresql-pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpool-II.spec Basic summary of things to change: * Tue Feb 20 2007 Jarod Wilson 1.0.2-2 - Create proper devel package, drop -libs package - Nuke rpath - Don't install libtool archive and static lib - Clean up %%configure line - Use proper %%_smp_mflags - Install config files properly, without .sample on the end - Preserve timestamps on header files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:17:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:17:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227095] Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201917.l1KJHOXr022589@bugzilla.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: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227095 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-20 14:17 EST ------- Here is an updated source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/230/plexus-xmlrpc.spec SOURCE RPM: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/231/plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.1.b4.3jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:19:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:19:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227095] Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201919.l1KJJXgB022850@bugzilla.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: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227095 ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-20 14:19 EST ------- Sorry... I posted that in the wrong bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:20:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:20:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227108] Review Request: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201920.l1KJKtEB022977@bugzilla.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: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227108 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-20 14:20 EST ------- Here is an updated source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/230/plexus-xmlrpc.spec SOURCE RPM: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/231/plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.1.b4.3jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:26:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:26:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226704] Review Request: iasl - Intel acpi compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201926.l1KJQGFn023448@bugzilla.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: iasl - Intel acpi compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226704 ------- Additional Comments From gemi at bluewin.ch 2007-02-20 14:26 EST ------- > Do you want to do it or do you use the utitilities? Not really. I once tried iasl for changing DSDT of my laptop (and failed). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:29:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:29:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201929.l1KJTswt023884@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-20 14:29 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > #001: You should explicitly require kdebase, since this package is useless > without kwin. > Requires: kdebase > Ok, will do. > #002: other themes ?? ... > > * Bushido-Yellow-theme - shows how masking can be done. > The Bushido-Yellow-theme from the tarball does not do its masking properly (on my system at least) - it cuts out the central window titlebar-area, making it impossible to see the window title. I will see if I can edit the masks to make it work properly, otherwise, I'll remove the references from the help file (the other themes also demonstrate masking anyway). The theme is also available here: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=32163 ...but this version is not compatible with dekorator 0.3. As for the "K-style: Infinity" theme: the version packaged with dekorator is broken, according to its author: http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=35590 I think a separate package for this theme (using the updated source) would be better. > > #003: Below that same page (help), there is a typo "Allways", it should be > Always. Patch as appropriate and inform upstream. > Will do. > #004: Is there any reason why you are shipping ugly-theme.tar.gz at > /usr/share/doc/dekorator-0.3/themes/ ? > Simply because it's, well, ugly ;-), and obviously designed to be a teaching example, not an _actual_ theme... Should I rather install this by default? Or maybe put it in a subpackage? I was wondering about the "template" theme as well, but at least that one's usable and semi-nice to look at. > #005 I've also noticed that /usr/share/doc/dekorator-0.3/themes/deKhelp.xhtml is > a duplicate to the "help" page provided by the kcontrol module. Very similar, yes. I will remove this. > > #006: For the very first time, one select and use dekorator, he/she will be > frameless. Users will freak out. Can you do the necessary so that a default > theme might be chosen by default. I agree, this is *very* irritating. I will look into this; it shouldn't be too hard. I have a question, though: do you think I should make it so that the "Set Theme Path" button's actions are automatically performed when the user selects a theme from the list (and thus remove the button completely)? Or should the program only select an initial default theme, and leave the "set theme path" button as it is? Personally I feel the "set theme path" button is an unnecessary and unintuitive step and should be removed, but someone else's opinion would be greatly appreciated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:31:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:31:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201931.l1KJVUwY023976@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-20 14:31 EST ------- I think you can go ahead and import and build as normal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:34:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:34:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201934.l1KJYAjD024203@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 ------- Additional Comments From belegdol at gmail.com 2007-02-20 14:34 EST ------- Ok, package imported and tagged. Building will have to wait till tomorrow, I presume, as I'm behind a proxy and plague does not work for me. I'll go to internet cafe and do it from there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:42:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:42:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 169704] Review Request: mosml - Moscow ML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201942.l1KJg0TY024947@bugzilla.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: mosml - Moscow ML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169704 gemi at bluewin.ch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From gemi at bluewin.ch 2007-02-20 14:41 EST ------- Build on devel and FC6 for i386 and ppc. Added to FE-ExcludeArch-x64 tracker. I did not try to build it on x86_64. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:46:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:46:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201946.l1KJk0iG025402@bugzilla.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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-20 14:45 EST ------- - Imported and built on FC-5, FC-6, and devel - Entry added to comps for FE5, FE6, and FE7 - Wiki page created at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Games/poker2d Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:47:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:47:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227095] Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201947.l1KJlDkd025541@bugzilla.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: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227095 ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-20 14:47 EST ------- Here is the correct updated source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE; https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/232/plexus-appserver.spec SOURCE RPM: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/233/plexus-appserver-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:48:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:48:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201948.l1KJmgEw025694@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 19:57:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:57:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227068] Review Request: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702201957.l1KJv1lm026402@bugzilla.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: jaxen-1.1-0.b7.4jpp - An XPath engine written in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227068 jjohnstn at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jjohnstn at redhat.com |overholt at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jjohnstn at redhat.com 2007-02-20 14:56 EST ------- Please just use %{_javadocdir}/* in %files section for javadoc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 20:00:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229391] New: Review Request: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps 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=229391 Summary: Review Request: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: dlehman at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlehman/s-c-kdump/system-config-kdump.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/dlehman/s-c-kdump/system-config-kdump-1.0.9-3.el5.src.rpm Description: system-config-kdump is a graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumping via kdump and kexec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 20:03:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:03:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202003.l1KK3Sri026905@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-20 15:03 EST ------- The buildroot was voted on in the FPC and later ratified by fesco. Since the vote in the FPC was under peculiar circumstances the issue was raised again the next week and the buildroot changed (by vote) to one w/o id -un. Currently I'm trying to persuade the FPC to drop the mandatory part on buildroots and simply allow any sane buildroot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 20:05:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229391] Review Request: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202005.l1KK5iGg027077@bugzilla.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: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229391 dlehman at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From dlehman at redhat.com 2007-02-20 15:05 EST ------- This being my first package, I will need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 20:37:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225301] Merge Review: automake17 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202037.l1KKb6XQ029102@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake17 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225301 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-20 15:37 EST ------- Whoops, maybe we should continue in German to avoid misunderstandings ;-) Fixes are only in the spec file, there's only one patch for the self checks, but those are currently disabled. Gruesse aus Stuttgart... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:04:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:04:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226535] Merge Review: w3m In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202104.l1KL4uJb032050@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: w3m https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226535 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-20 16:04 EST ------- Bug #222914 must be fixed before the merge, as the bug report is related to packaging. Note, this comment is no formal review - it's just a notice for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:23:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:23:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202123.l1KLNA9b000767@bugzilla.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: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 ------- Additional Comments From meyering at redhat.com 2007-02-20 16:23 EST ------- I've addressed all problems and put the new specs, tarballs and RPMs here: http://rhm.et.redhat.com/download/qpidc-0.1-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:34:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:34:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202134.l1KLY6wZ001175@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-20 16:34 EST ------- I'd like for someone from the FPC and/or FESCo to comment. People I'm finding on IRC say it was agreed it should be changed to something without the id, call, instead using a mktemp call, but that had unexpected negative side-effects, so everything is currently still as it has been. So at the moment, the guidelines still say that the mandatory buildroot is the one previously quoted. Of course, I agree that anything sane should be fine. Above and beyond that, I really don't think we should have to care what the buildroot is at all. If its supposed to be the same in all specs, it should be specified by the build system, not duplicated in every spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:35:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:35:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227108] Review Request: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202135.l1KLZk7l001255@bugzilla.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: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227108 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-20 16:35 EST ------- plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.1.b4.3jpp.1.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.1.b4.3jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-xmlrpc non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-xmlrpc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 63) (minor warnings, should be fine) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters -- a couple of lines are longer than 80 chars (lines 147, 153) -- OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath OK * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: OK * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:38:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:38:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229243] Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202138.l1KLcI9S001470@bugzilla.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: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229243 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-20 16:38 EST ------- http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/compat-wxGTK26.spec http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/compat-wxGTK26-2.6.3-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:42:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:42:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202142.l1KLgDVk001812@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-20 16:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > The Bushido-Yellow-theme from the tarball does not do its masking properly (on > my system at least) - it cuts out the central window titlebar-area, making it > impossible to see the window title. I will see if I can edit the masks to make > it work properly, otherwise, I'll remove the references from the help file (the > other themes also demonstrate masking anyway). > The theme is also available here: > http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=32163 > ...but this version is not compatible with dekorator 0.3. > > As for the "K-style: Infinity" theme: the version packaged with dekorator is > broken, according to its author: > http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=35590 > I think a separate package for this theme (using the updated source) would be > better. > Ok, I'm good with the explanations given. Can you include a "dekorator.fedora" file to the package which explains this choice. This "dekorator.fedora" file will be included in %doc > Simply because it's, well, ugly ;-), and obviously designed to be a teaching > example, not an _actual_ theme... Should I rather install this by default? Or > maybe put it in a subpackage? I was wondering about the "template" theme as > well, but at least that one's usable and semi-nice to look at. If this "ugly" theme isn't broken, I would like it to be installed as a theme. We should not forget that our users aren't stupid, they might be waiting to see it included. :) > I agree, this is *very* irritating. I will look into this; it shouldn't be too > hard. I have a question, though: do you think I should make it so that the "Set > Theme Path" button's actions are automatically performed when the user selects a theme from the list (and thus remove the button completely)? Or should the > program only select an initial default theme, and leave the "set theme path" > button as it is? Personally I feel the "set theme path" button is an unnecessary > and unintuitive step and should be removed, but someone else's opinion would be > greatly appreciated. If you can do it, why not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:47:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:47:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227095] Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202147.l1KLl4lV001991@bugzilla.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: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227095 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-20 16:46 EST ------- plexus-appserver-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.1.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NA * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint plexus-appserver-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-appserver non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-appserver mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 91) (minor warnings, should be fine) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters -- lines 59, 147, 153 are longer than 80 chars -- OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath OK * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NA * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:48:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:48:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202148.l1KLmfps002050@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-20 16:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Well, > > * License > * www/static/js/jsolait/lib/iter.js > - says this is GPL It should be perfectly acceptable to use GPL code within an LGPL package. As stated, all things are LGPL unless otherwise indicated. > * Documentation > * Add "Authors COPYING LGPL" to main package. > Especially, including copyright document is rather > mandatory (however copyright must be clarified) Whoops! I forgot to add those to the package when I added them to the source repo. My bad. > > * Source > * Where is the source? BTW during -6 and -7, source tarball > seem to be silently changed without their version number > unchanged... Currently the source is provided in the srpm. This is the current preferred method of distribution, given that we are the upstream. I haven't versioned the source just yet, I need to work with the other maintainers on how to properly handle that, so yeah, the source changed a little bit. http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/koji/koji-0.9.5-8.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:52:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:52:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227095] Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202152.l1KLqTGt002377@bugzilla.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: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227095 ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-20 16:52 EST ------- Btw, this section: %if %{gcj_support} if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ] then %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db fi %endif seems to be repeated in the spec file (lines 177-182) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:58:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:58:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229416] New: Review Request: qpidj - qpid java implementation 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=229416 Summary: Review Request: qpidj - qpid java implementation Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/qpidj.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/srpms/qpidj-0.1-4rhm.src.rpm Description: Apache Qpid's java implementation of AMQP. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 21:59:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:59:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225288] Merge Review: at In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202159.l1KLxKB0002826@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-20 16:59 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148446) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148446&action=view) Let rpmbuild strip binaries Applying this patch and removing "%define debug_package %{nil}" lets rpmbuild strip the binaries and produce a useful debuginfo package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:01:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:01:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229417] New: Review Request: qpidpy - qpid's python implementation 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=229417 Summary: Review Request: qpidpy - qpid's python implementation Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/qpidpy.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/srpms/qpidpy-0.1-2rhm.src.rpm Description: Apache Qpid's python implementation of AMQP. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:02:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:02:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202202.l1KM2qrq003062@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-20 17:02 EST ------- > I'd like for someone from the FPC and/or FESCo to comment. I'm from FPC. Yes, we went for using mktemp -ud as the lesser evil. The expected side-effects are that stepped rpmbuilds (using --short-circuit for example) won't work anymore unless you supply a buildroot on the command line. > Of course, I agree that anything sane should be fine. Above and beyond that, I > really don't think we should have to care what the buildroot is at all. If its > supposed to be the same in all specs, it should be specified by the build > system, not duplicated in every spec. +\infty -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:03:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:03:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229418] New: Review Request: qpidrb - qpid's ruby implementation 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=229418 Summary: Review Request: qpidrb - qpid's ruby implementation Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/qpidrb.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/srpms/qpidrb-0.1-2rhm.src.rpm Description: Apache Qpid's ruby implementation of AMQP. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:06:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:06:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229419] New: Review Request: glew - The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library 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=229419 Summary: Review Request: glew - The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bruno at postle.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://bugbear.blackfish.org.uk/~bruno/apt/SPECS/glew.spec SRPM URL: Message-ID: <200702202216.l1KMGNYg003999@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-20 17:16 EST ------- Updated package: http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-media-0.6-2.src.rpm - editor swap file removed - I've asked upstream to clarify/cleanup the licensing text, and updated the spec file to use "License: GPL/GFDL" - Removed duplicate license texts from %doc and %{_datadir} I'm not sure of the best way to handle the unowned /usr/share/sear directory. This is provided by the 'sear' package, which will 'Requires: sear-media' once approved. But this would still allow someone to install sear-media without sear, and have an unowned directory. I see two ways to handle this: 1) Have both sear and sear-media own %{_datadir}/sear 2) Have both packages require each other: sear 'Requires: sear-media' sear-media 'Requires: sear' ...but I thought that circular dependencies were frowned upon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:16:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:16:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229321] Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202216.l1KMGwq3004089@bugzilla.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: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 ------- Additional Comments From devrim at commandprompt.com 2007-02-20 17:16 EST ------- Thanks for the review. Spec URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/pgpool-II.spec SRPM URL: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpool-II-1.0.2-2.src.rpm Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:22:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202222.l1KMMcqa004664@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-20 17:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > > I'd like for someone from the FPC and/or FESCo to comment. > > I'm from FPC. Ah, I was completely unaware of that. :) It seems there has been a lack of communication between FPC and FESCo. At the very least, some members of FESCo appear to be unaware of any changes made to the packaging guidelines... > Yes, we went for using mktemp -ud as the lesser evil. The expected > side-effects are that stepped rpmbuilds (using --short-circuit for example) > won't work anymore unless you supply a buildroot on the command line. So where does this leave us with respect to what's currently spelled out as being mandatory in the guidelines? > > Of course, I agree that anything sane should be fine. Above and beyond that, I > > really don't think we should have to care what the buildroot is at all. If its > > supposed to be the same in all specs, it should be specified by the build > > system, not duplicated in every spec. > > +\infty :) So how about just putting in the current "Mandatory" BuildRoot value as listed in the current packaging guidelines for now, and once the dust settles for The Grand Future of BuildRoot, change it to whatever the new-and-improved version is? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:22:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:22:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202222.l1KMMttw004700@bugzilla.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: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 kwizart at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kwizart at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-20 17:22 EST ------- SRPMS: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/elektra/elektra-0.6.4-3.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SPECS: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/elektra/elektra.spec Summary: A key/value pair database to store software configurations rpmlint errors on source and binaries E: elektra sourced-script-with-shebang /etc/profile.d/elektra-elektraenv.sh E: elektra executable-sourced-script /etc/profile.d/elektra-elektraenv.sh 0755 W: elektra-static no-documentation W: elektra-static-devel no-documentation About the source script error: the /etc/profiles.d/ directory i have do not contain any file (which are sh or csh - so executable by definition) which do not have executable bit set... (if you have some example i will check) I've checked for examples in glib2 or krb5 but non of theses file remove it... they do not use %config for one or %config(noreplace) for the other. I think this file isn't aimed to be checked by used to define their environnement but use the environnement that conform to the package version... (i will check by use) Anyway The packaging guideline should state about this question... I plan to release cinepaint which requires oyranos which requires elektra (do you know kafka?!) So hope it will help to do so. I will use it as a base for oyranos packaging i also hope it will help to solve differents question open here and to know how to fix them by the examples... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:24:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:24:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225683] Merge Review: dev86 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202224.l1KMOiNO004953@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dev86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225683 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-20 17:24 EST ------- Just a note, not a review: package appears to be compiled without $RPM_OPT_FLAGS. Using 'make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"' seems to fix some of it, but causes also the build to fail as options not recognized by ncc are passed to it during build. http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00339.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:26:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:26:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202226.l1KMQuq2005210@bugzilla.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: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-20 17:26 EST ------- Who will be the owners of this package? Do you already have Fedora Account System accounts? Have you requested cvsextras access? (I don't know you, so I hope we can talk a short bit sometime during Wednesday before sponsoring your membership.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:26:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:26:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229416] Review Request: qpidj - qpid java implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202226.l1KMQv5R005227@bugzilla.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: qpidj - qpid java implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229416 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: qpidj - qpid|Review Request: qpidj - qpid |java implementation |java implementation AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-20 17:26 EST ------- qpidj-0.1-4rhm.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. NO * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot -- NO * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) -- dist not used -- NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc -- OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint qpidj-0.1-4rhm.src.rpm W: qpidj summary-ended-with-dot Java implementation of Apache Qpid. W: qpidj non-standard-group Development/Java W: qpidj mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 3) W: qpidj class-path-in-manifest /jmscts-0.5-b2.jar -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright NO * Summary tag should not end in a period -- Summary: Java implementation of Apache Qpid. -- OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package NO * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) -- description == summary -- NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters -- a number of lines are longer than 80 chars -- OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NO * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) -- not marked with (noreplace): %config %{_datadir}/%{name}/etc/* -- NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) NA * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc -- ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:28:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:28:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225707] Merge Review: dosfstools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202228.l1KMSoG1005439@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dosfstools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225707 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-20 17:28 EST ------- Not a review, but a packaging issue to fix: build produces a useless debuginfo package due to use of "install -s" in the specfile; dropping the two occurrences of -s fixes it. http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-January/msg00339.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:31:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:31:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202231.l1KMVY4J005678@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-20 17:31 EST ------- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1 says The MANDATORY value for the BuildRoot tag is %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) its mandatory use it regardless of your personal beliefs the community that you are part of agreed to it. if it changes at some point in the future you will be free to change it then. until then please abide by the guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:35:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:35:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229417] Review Request: qpidpy - qpid's python implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202235.l1KMZVNc005847@bugzilla.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: qpidpy - qpid's python implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229417 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: qpidpy - |Review Request: qpidpy - |qpid's python implementation|qpid's python implementation AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-20 17:35 EST ------- qpidpy-0.1-2rhm.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot NO * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) -- dist not used -- NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc -- OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint qpidpy-0.1-2rhm.src.rpm W: qpidpy non-standard-group Development/Python (minor warning, should be ok) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters -- lines 10 and 33 are longer than 80 chars -- OK * specfile written in American English NA * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) NA * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code NO * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present NA * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc -- ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:37:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 201502] Review Request: php-pear-PhpDocumentor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202237.l1KMbamW005947@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PhpDocumentor Alias: phpDocumentor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201502 ------- Additional Comments From icon at fedoraproject.org 2007-02-20 17:37 EST ------- So, is someone supposed to set the "fedora-review" flag to "+"? Sorry, I'm extremely confused about the new system. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:43:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:43:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229418] Review Request: qpidrb - qpid's ruby implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202243.l1KMhuun006302@bugzilla.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: qpidrb - qpid's ruby implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229418 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-20 17:43 EST ------- qpidrb-0.1-2rhm.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot NO * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) -- dist not used -- NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc -- OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint qpidrb-0.1-2rhm.src.rpm W: qpidrb non-standard-group Development/Ruby W: qpidrb no-%build-section (should be ok) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters -- line 10 is longer than 80 chars -- OK * specfile written in American English NA * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) NA * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present NA * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc -- included but not marked with %doc -- ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 22:45:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:45:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202245.l1KMjF0g006469@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-20 17:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > I'm from FPC. Yes, we went for using mktemp -ud as the lesser evil. The expected > side-effects are that stepped rpmbuilds (using --short-circuit for example) > won't work anymore unless you supply a buildroot on the command line. Could you post a reproducer for this to fedora-packaging? -bi --short-circuit builds work just fine for me with a mktemp -ud BuildRoot when it's specified in a specfile. OTOH it doesn't work for whatever reason if I set it in ~/.rpmmacros (gets evaluated twice in that case), but perhaps that's what you meant? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 23:29:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:29:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202329.l1KNTceT008782@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-20 18:29 EST ------- The use of %{_datadir}/pixmaps location isn't a blocker and surely not a preference. my sentence was : * You use an 48x48 icon, and i think it **maybe** souhld be install in %{_datadir}/icons/ And if you use to install the icon in %{_datadir}/icons location, the symlink is not recommanded. So, you "icon=" tag in .desktop file should be point to %{_datadir}/icon/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 23:35:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:35:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226800] Review Request: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202335.l1KNZh1P009321@bugzilla.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: emacs-bbdb - email database for Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226800 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood at gmail.com 2007-02-20 18:35 EST ------- Hi Tom, Interestingly I submitted this around the same time as you, so please look at the spec file in bug 227230, as that contains a number of things I think you should consider, including: 0) You're building and packaging *only* the bbdb bindings for VM, whereas bbdb comes with bindings for Gnus and MH-E, both included with Emacs - you need to do make all to build those as well. 1) BBDB requires TeX for the bbdb-print functionality to work, as bbdb-print creates a TeX file, and so I included a Requires: tetex. I'm on the fence with this one, I have to say. 2) Your package description doesn't mention that the BBDB is an add on for Emacs - it should. 3) You should use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT *or* %{buildroot} in your spec consistently, not a mixture of both. 4) You need to remove [ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] && from the %clean section 5) There are a number of shell scripts and extra bits which are very useful to bbdb users - I packaged these as documentation, along with the ChangeLog with %doc bits misc utils ChangeLog in the %files section - I strongly urge you to do the same. 6) Assuming you do (5) above, you'll need to make the *.pl files non executeable with a find -name '*.pl' -exec chmod -x {} \; in the %install section, and you'll also need to remove some irrelevant files: rm -f bits/make.bat rm -f utils/Makefile* 7) What was your reason for putting bbdb-autoloads in site-start.d ? If I recall correctly, this is unecessary, all of the files can live happily in site-lisp/bbdb (which is on the load-path by default). Perhaps I missed something here though. 8) The make install-pkg target in the bbdb makefile is totally useless for our purposes - for readability I'd really recommend not using that, but rather doing a few simple copies into the buildroot. Example from my spec: # There is no usable install make rule - install by hand. %define lispdir %{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/bbdb mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{lispdir} cp lisp/*.{elc,el} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{lispdir} %define texdir %{_datadir}/texmf/tex/generic/bbdb mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{texdir} cp tex/*.tex $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{texdir} mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir} cp texinfo/bbdb.info $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir} 9) I think your BuildRequires for emacs-vm-el is unecessary, as although warnings will pop up, I don't think they matter. I *may* be wrong here though. I sort of hope so, since I recently added a patch to the emacs-vm package (the vmrf patch) which ultimately will lead to a BuildRequires: emacs-bbdb, at which point we'll have a circular dependency. I need to think more about point 9. Also, if you want a co-maintainer, I'm happy to do that. Great to see someone else interested in bbdb! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 23:46:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:46:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197565] Review Request: buildbot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202346.l1KNkKi5009894@bugzilla.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: buildbot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565 giallu at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-20 18:46 EST ------- I am going to unorphan this package; please replace old owner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 20 23:56:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:56:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702202356.l1KNuWno010303@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-20 18:56 EST ------- Thanks for the update. We really lack guidelines to help us in this case. Our fonts-* packages usually just use the generic Western name for the language (ie typically derived from the country name). Eg in current Fedora Core we have fonts-* packages for: arabic bengali chinese gujarati hebrew hindi japanese kannada korean malayalam oriya punjabi sinhala tamil telugu But note that fonts-bengali is also used for Assamese, and fonts-hindi for Marathi, so there are some precedents for using say just fonts-tibetan to name the package. If I remember correctly the Tibetan population is rather larger than that of Dzongkha and Ladakhi speakers. Personally I prefer fonts-tibetan-script to fonts-tibetan-dzongkha. Another approach could be to put Tibetan Machine Uni in fonts-tibetan and Jomolhari in fonts-dzongkha (or maybe better fonts-bhutanese?). I still rather like fonts-tibetan, and remember normal users should not need to worry about the name of the fonts package, they would just use pirut to "yum groupinstall bhutanese-support" etc to get the appropriate font, input method and language packs, etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 00:15:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:15:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210015.l1L0FBnW010975@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 19:15 EST ------- Well, my recognition is that if both LGPL and GPL codes are found, the whole package must be licensed under GPL, isn't it right? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 00:38:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:38:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210038.l1L0cAnM012038@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-20 19:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > It seems there has been a lack of communication between FPC and FESCo. At the > very least, some members of FESCo appear to be unaware of any changes made to > the packaging guidelines... Well, fesco and fpc overlap by > 50% or more, so at least that amount of fesco should be aware of fpc topics automatically and have perfect communication. :) (In reply to comment #13) > its mandatory use it regardless of your personal beliefs the community that > you are part of agreed to it. if it changes at some point in the future Ahem, the "future" was a week ago. FPC reevaluated this decision and dropped that buildroot in favour of the mktemp one, the voting was unanimously. But I don't know whether it was persented to fesco on Thursday and if, whether it was ratified. > you will be free to change it then. until then please abide by the > guidelines. Please check fedora-packaging (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #11) > > I'm from FPC. Yes, we went for using mktemp -ud as the lesser evil. The expected > > side-effects are that stepped rpmbuilds (using --short-circuit for example) > > won't work anymore unless you supply a buildroot on the command line. > > Could you post a reproducer for this to fedora-packaging? -bi --short-circuit > builds work just fine for me with a mktemp -ud BuildRoot when it's specified in > a specfile. OTOH it doesn't work for whatever reason if I set it in > ~/.rpmmacros (gets evaluated twice in that case), but perhaps that's what you meant? Sorry, Ville, I think you are 100% correct and this is a Red Herring. I was just quoting racor on this w/o thinking too much on my own. Indeed, since it's not quite sane to use the buildroot outside of %install and %clean, all that is slightly broken is separating building and cleaning, but IMHO we can live with that. Of course you will find some people that claim that %buildroot should be available during %build, too, and I remember such a discussion on fedora-packaging, perhaps racor was even one of them. We should better create a guideline against using %buildroot in %prep and %build. :) So even less evil with the mktemp variant. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 00:39:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210039.l1L0dms6012108@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command Alias: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 bjohnson at symetrix.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| | Alias| |ntop ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-20 19:39 EST ------- So here is the response regarding Legal issues that I got from someone on the mailing list: > > Another data point: > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html > > I'm not sure that we really have a problem here. > I'm setting the blocker for FE-Legal until this is resolved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 00:41:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227035] Review Request: aspectj-1.2.1-3jpp - AspectJ aspect-oriented language extension to Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210041.l1L0fMeP012190@bugzilla.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: aspectj-1.2.1-3jpp - AspectJ aspect-oriented language extension to Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227035 green at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |green at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2007-02-20 19:41 EST ------- I get the following error when I try to build... BUILD FAILED /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/org.aspectj/modules/org.eclipse.jdt.core/build.xml:11: Unable to find a javac compiler; com.sun.tools.javac.Main is not on the classpath. Perhaps JAVA_HOME does not point to the JDK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 00:47:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:47:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210047.l1L0lE1Z012384@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-20 19:47 EST ------- Why won't this work?: sear-media.spec: ... %files %dir %{_datadir}/sear {%_datadir}/sear/%{name}-%{version} Then in sear.spec: Requires: %{name}-media ... %files %{_datadir}/%{name}/* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 00:50:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:50:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210050.l1L0oXBk012441@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-20 19:50 EST ------- The GPL file isn't linked to any LGPL file. It is just used by the web stuff. Also, the jsolait package has a copying.txt file that is LGPL, not sure why one of their files has a GPL header. Looking upstream it seems as if this file is no longer there, we may update to a newer version soon, but can't immediately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 00:56:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:56:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210056.l1L0unin012588@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 19:56 EST ------- Okay, now there is nowthing to block this request. ----------------------------------------------- This package (koji) is APPROVED by me. ----------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 01:02:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:02:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210102.l1L12Apk012808@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-20 20:02 EST ------- Well aren't you just the clever one. :) That should work just fine. According to a small sampling on f-d-l, a circular dependency in this case would be ok too. http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-media.spec http://www.kobold.org/~wart/fedora/sear-media-0.6-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 01:11:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:11:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226363] Merge Review: redhat-lsb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210111.l1L1BsE9013117@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: redhat-lsb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226363 llim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |llim at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 01:24:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:24:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210124.l1L1OKwR013408@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-20 20:24 EST ------- All must items fixed. Approved pending changes to sear.spec mentioned above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 01:28:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:28:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210128.l1L1SawO013715@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-20 20:28 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dbmail Short Description: The DBMail mail storage system Owners: bjohnson at symetrix.com Branches: FC-5, FC-6, devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 01:29:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:29:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210129.l1L1TPEg013769@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 bjohnson at symetrix.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 01:30:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:30:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 201502] Review Request: php-pear-PhpDocumentor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210130.l1L1UT9S013844@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PhpDocumentor Alias: phpDocumentor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201502 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-20 20:30 EST ------- I think most of us feel that way at this point :) The fedora-review flag / review procedure is _not_ in effect and has not yet been approved by FESCo. (It is currently in use for merge reviews, but as this is not a core package this is not a merge review.) Note that to import/branch & add to owners.list, the fedora-cvs flag procedure has been approved by FESCo and should be used here. (basically, just set fedora-cvs to '?' and at the same time add a comment as described in the procedure with owner/branch info.) see http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 01:32:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:32:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 216723] Review Request: libsieve - A library for parsing, sorting and filtering your mail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210132.l1L1WhED013931@bugzilla.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: libsieve - A library for parsing, sorting and filtering your mail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216723 bjohnson at symetrix.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-20 20:32 EST ------- Additional Branches: FC-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 01:42:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:42:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210142.l1L1gTrQ014499@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-20 20:42 EST ------- I've made the changes to sear.spec in CVS and will rebuild once sear-media has been checked in 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 01:43:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226189] Merge Review: neon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210143.l1L1hnuG014532@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: neon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226189 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-20 20:43 EST ------- OK, that all seems reasonable. The current policy is supposed to be to require static libs to be in a -static subpackage, but for some reason that isn't actually in the guidelines although it was ratified in November. So I certainly won't block on that. It would be nice to get at least a couple of comments about why the .la and .a files are needed, and about why the test suite can't be run, into the .spec so that the next person who takes a look at it will at least know why they're there. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 01:45:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:45:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210145.l1L1j5HO014599@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-20 20:45 EST ------- Package Name: sear-media Short Description: Media files for the sear WorldForge client Owners: wart at kobold.org Branches: FC-6 InitialCC: che666 at gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 02:10:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:10:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226363] Merge Review: redhat-lsb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210210.l1L2ATKx015997@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: redhat-lsb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226363 llim at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From llim at redhat.com 2007-02-20 21:10 EST ------- Patch included in redhat-lsb-3_1-13. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 02:24:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:24:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226363] Merge Review: redhat-lsb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210224.l1L2Omr7016981@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: redhat-lsb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226363 ------- Additional Comments From llim at redhat.com 2007-02-20 21:24 EST ------- http://people.redhat.com/llim/lsb/redhat-lsb.spec http://people.redhat.com/llim/lsb/redhat-lsb-3.1-13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 02:52:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:52:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229440] New: Review Request: redhat-lsb - package for LSB comformance 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=229440 Summary: Review Request: redhat-lsb - package for LSB comformance Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: llim at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: SRPM URL: Description: The Linux Standards Base (LSB) is an attempt to develop a set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions. The redhat-lsb package provides utilities needed for LSB Compliant Applications as well as requirements that will ensure that all components required by the LSB that are installed on the system. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 03:07:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:07:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199682] Review Request: postgresql-dbi-link - Partial implementation of the SQL/MED portion of the SQL:2003 specification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210307.l1L374h2018540@bugzilla.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: postgresql-dbi-link - Partial implementation of the SQL/MED portion of the SQL:2003 specification https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199682 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-20 22:07 EST ------- in reply to comment #25 You need to remove the cp statements that move the doc files in order for that to work. I'll attach a diff so you can see what I mean. I think it's cleaner to have those examples there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 03:08:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:08:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199682] Review Request: postgresql-dbi-link - Partial implementation of the SQL/MED portion of the SQL:2003 specification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210308.l1L38EvZ018599@bugzilla.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: postgresql-dbi-link - Partial implementation of the SQL/MED portion of the SQL:2003 specification https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199682 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-20 22:08 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148462) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148462&action=view) patch to spec file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 03:44:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:44:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210344.l1L3i6aS020510@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-20 22:44 EST ------- Thanks Peter. 1. good. ok. 2. Not sure what to do here... The package review guidelines say: "- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task." Is there anyone you might be able to ask to find out the reason for the sysklogd-rh.tar.gz source? It looks like notting used to maintain this package around that time, perhaps we could ask him? 3. good. ok. 4. a) b) c) d) good. ok. e) ok. I understand your reasoning, although I am not sure what problems renaming the init file would cause. f) ok. 5. You can read about the dist tag here: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag basically this allows you to ship the same version in diffrent branches, and have the fc6 version have a .fc6, and so on, so upgrades work. 6. ok, none of them seem package related to me... Sorry for the breakage in syslog-ng Jose. ;( So, the only blocker I see left is point #2. Perhaps notting can enlighten us. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 04:09:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210409.l1L49Eft022013@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From daniil.ivanov at gmail.com 2007-02-20 23:09 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148464) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148464&action=view) mock build log of konwert-1.8-7.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 04:12:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:12:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210412.l1L4CUdS022203@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-20 23:12 EST ------- 2 - Too many patches, so it was maintained in CVS (upstream sysklogd imported on a vendor branch.) See :pserver:rhlinux.redhat.com:/usr/local/CVS sysklogd -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 04:13:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:13:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210413.l1L4Dwvq022311@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 04:17:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210417.l1L4HFeu022520@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From daniil.ivanov at gmail.com 2007-02-20 23:17 EST ------- Hi, attempt #2 Spec URL: http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/konwert.spec SRPM URL: http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/konwert-1.8-7.fc7.src.rpm rpmlint -iv konwert-1.8-7.fc7.x86_64.rpm I: konwert checking rpmlint -i konwert-1.8-7.fc7.src.rpm I: konwert checking rpmlint -i konwert-debuginfo-1.8-7.fc7.x86_64.rpm I: konwert-debuginfo checking E: konwert-debuginfo empty-debuginfo-package rpmlint -i konwert-devel-1.8-7.fc7.x86_64.rpm I: konwert-devel checking -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 04:44:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:44:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210444.l1L4i3CI024624@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-20 23:44 EST ------- Please increment release number every time you change/fix your spec/srpm. Changing spec/srpm without changing release number causes confusion on the people who are watching your spec/srpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 05:06:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:06:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210506.l1L56hTj025857@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin at tummy.com ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-21 00:06 EST ------- Humm...ok. The differences between the upstream and the rh version seems to be around 26k once you remove the sysklogd.spec and the redhat/Changelog files (which was last updated in 2004). many of the remaning changes are pretty simple logical files (like the files under the redhat/ dir, which are config, logrotate, etc, files). For comparison, there is a ipv6 patch thats 21k. Peter: Would you be willing to split out the changes as logical patches and then use the base upstream source? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 05:23:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:23:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210523.l1L5NsK9026205@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From daniil.ivanov at gmail.com 2007-02-21 00:23 EST ------- Sorry, I increased the relesed number Spec URL: http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/konwert.spec SRPM URL: http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/konwert-1.8-8.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 05:43:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:43:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210543.l1L5hc0t026879@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-21 00:43 EST ------- Spec URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/x2vnc.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/x2vnc-1.7.2-2.src.rpm >* BuildRequires: > > - All BR must not be on the same line (max 76), vim is your friend... Fixed > - There're some BR which're not necessary to be set ( such as "make", >"autoconf", "gcc" "and automake"). Removed. Not sure what I was thinking here :) > - All others are not quite good, you must use -devel package (e.g libXext-devel). Reworked this section. > - xorg-x11-proto-devel is redundant as libX11-devel (which should be set >instead of libX11) is require by libXinerama-devel. > - libX11-devel is redundant as libXinerama-devel requires libX11-devel. > - check for some other BR too. I pulled all devel libs that appear to be needed and tried installing each to see if they pulled each other. They don't appear to, at least not the final set listed in BR. > >* Requires > > - You should really think about what x2vnc requires to be able to start and >work correctly. > - According to me, x2vnc doesn't work alone. > - Check this. x2vnc requires almost nothing to run. Look at the spec for xterm, it requires nothing. Ideally, I would require an X11 session of some sort, but I am not sure what syntax to use for "X must be present". > >* %prep > > - the use of "cp -f x2vnc.man x2vnc.man.orig" is useless. You don't need to >create an save file. > - Also the use of "mv -f new_man x2vnc.man" is useless. > - Just use : > iconv -f iso-8859-5 -t utf-8 x2vnc.man > x2vnc.man > instead of > iconv -f iso-8859-5 -t utf-8 x2vnc.man > new_man Changed > >* %build > - sounds good. > >* %install > > - The use of "mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" is useless. > Buildroot is already created by default. > - You should add timestamp in your "make install" : INSTALL="install -p". Changed > >* %changelog > > - please add a DOT to "Initial packaging" sentence. Ok -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 06:39:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:39:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199682] Review Request: postgresql-dbi-link - Partial implementation of the SQL/MED portion of the SQL:2003 specification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210639.l1L6d1hB028082@bugzilla.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: postgresql-dbi-link - Partial implementation of the SQL/MED portion of the SQL:2003 specification https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199682 ------- Additional Comments From devrim at commandprompt.com 2007-02-21 01:38 EST ------- Hi, Thanks for the review. Here is the new spec: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/dbi-link/postgresql-dbi-link.spec Here is the new SRPM: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/dbi-link/postgresql-dbi-link-2.0.0-3.src.rpm Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 06:48:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 01:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225750] Merge Review: file In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210648.l1L6mkQ4028370@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225750 jpmahowald at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(jpmahowald at gmail.c|fedora-review+ |om), fedora-review- | ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com 2007-02-21 01:48 EST ------- Looking good. + devel and libSubpackages + macro usage throughout + ldconfig everything from comment 1 Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 07:11:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:11:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210711.l1L7B2F8028873@bugzilla.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: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system Alias: dbmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497 bjohnson at symetrix.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 07:44:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:44:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210744.l1L7iTIl029627@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-21 02:44 EST ------- AFAIK, there's no need to specify the full path in the .desktop file. The freedesktop.org Icon Theme Specification[1] covers what directories will be searched. I'll try to get the .desktop file and icons installed according to the fdo specs in a future release. For now I think a symlink in %{_datadir}/pixmaps works fine. I've uploaded a spec and srpm that incorporates the changes which I think are sufficient. Let me know if there are any issues that remain before the package is approved. Thanks! Spec URL: http://pobox.com/~tmz/fedora/gtkpod/gtkpod.spec SRPM URL: http://pobox.com/~tmz/fedora/gtkpod/gtkpod-0.99.8-3.fc7.src.rpm [1] http://standards.freedesktop.org/icon-theme-spec/icon-theme-spec-latest.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 07:59:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:59:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223490] Review Request: alex - The lexer generator for Haskell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210759.l1L7x9UC029932@bugzilla.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: alex - The lexer generator for Haskell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223490 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |petersen at redhat.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 08:57:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:57:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210857.l1L8vwBL000311@bugzilla.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: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-21 03:57 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > About the source script error: the /etc/profiles.d/ directory i have do not > contain any file (which are sh or csh - so executable by definition) which do > not have executable bit set... (if you have some example i will check) They are wrong. These are core packages that were not reviewed until recently and many had packaging issues, this will hopefully be solved soon. (you could even report those issues on the merge review tickets, though somebody already did it unless I'm wrong). > I've checked for examples in glib2 or krb5 but non of theses file remove it... > they do not use %config for one or %config(noreplace) for the other. > I think this file isn't aimed to be checked by used to define their > environnement but use the environnement that conform to the package version... > (i will check by use) > Anyway The packaging guideline should state about this question... It is a question that isn't completely agreed. My personal opinion is that scripts in /etc/init.d and /etc/profile.d shouldn't be %config at all. If I recall well, previously I did differently - and I accept other contributors view. > I plan to release cinepaint which requires oyranos which requires elektra (do > you know kafka?!) So hope it will help to do so. I will use it as a base for I think that you could submit them right now, and have oyranos depend on that ticket > oyranos packaging i also hope it will help to solve differents question open > here and to know how to fix them by the examples... Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig isn't needed, with %postun -p the dependency is added automatically. Otherwise - I'd like to keep the statically compiled executable, but it could be done later when elektra is used in such a way that it needs to be there for recovery. What I'd like is to have the library static package be called static-devel (or devel-static) such that the static name is kept for later use for executables. - your way to package doc is certainly better than mine because it will certainly work better with --short-circuit - about putting things not in /bin and /sbin, it's fine for me, also could be reverted if elektra is needed for recovery - Putting the include file in elektra/ subdirectory implies a change in the .pc file(s) I still haven't ssen the resulting names, to see if it isn't too much transformation and if it works. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 09:12:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:12:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210912.l1L9C1E1001971@bugzilla.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: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-21 04:11 EST ------- I sense some progress ;) Some remarks at random items: * Append --includedir=%{_includedir}/elektra to %configure, and all the include file handling magic in your current spec is superfluous. * remove --libdir=%{_libdir} from %configure. It's redundant * *-devel must own %{_includedir}/elektra -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 09:56:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:56:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225694] Merge Review: dictd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210956.l1L9unBw004236@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dictd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225694 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-21 04:56 EST ------- dictd-1.9.15-9 has the most common review issues fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 09:59:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:59:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226535] Merge Review: w3m In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702210959.l1L9xZHm004384@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: w3m https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226535 ------- Additional Comments From pnemade at redhat.com 2007-02-21 04:59 EST ------- Bug #222914 is now Fixed in w3m-0.5.1-16.fc7. Thanks for your feedback. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 10:04:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:04:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225893] Merge Review: hwdata In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211004.l1LA4nkg004637@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hwdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225893 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-21 05:04 EST ------- hwdata-0.196-1 has a fixed buildroot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 10:49:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:49:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211049.l1LAnDXq008107@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|twoerner at redhat.com |paul at city-fan.org Flag| |needinfo?(nobody at fedoraproje | |ct.org) ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-21 05:49 EST ------- Review process has changed again; reviewer remains as assignee now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 10:53:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:53:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211053.l1LAru0G008568@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(nobody at fedoraproje|needinfo?(twoerner at redhat.co |ct.org) |m) ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-21 05:53 EST ------- Grr, reporter is nobody; whose bright idea was that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 12:12:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:12:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226671] Merge Review: zlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211212.l1LCCJNT012881@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671 ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-21 07:12 EST ------- Fixed in zlib-1.2.3-7.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 12:15:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:15:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211215.l1LCFXYv012975@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-21 07:15 EST ------- 2) We can do nothing. I don't want to use upstream sources, because upstream is dead and some other distros are using our sources. I'd like to rather merge patches with RH sources, but need to be sure the sysklogd is stable as much as possible. I can remove URL(it doesn't point to our sources), if you don't like it. 5) There was a dist tag in spec file, wasn't it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 12:26:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:26:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211226.l1LCQpmX013442@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-21 07:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > By the way.. > Does this game try to create some files under > %{_var}/games/kobo-deluxe (e.g. some score files)? > If so, there is a possibility that this directory is > not deleted when trying to uninstall this package. Yes it does create files there and yes the dir will be left around after uninstall which is why the group isn't deleted on uninstall either. I could write a %postun which detect if this is a true uninstall or just an upgrade and on a true uninstall does rm -fr on the dir and then removes the group. (In reply to comment #5) > Well, for -0.2.pre10: > > * Documentation > - Perhaps README.xkobo is missing Your right > - One more non-UTF8 document found (note: this is not detected > by rpmlint) > ChangeLog ISO-8859-1 > Ok, I'll fix this and the README.xkobo as soon as its clear what todo with the left-over highscore files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 12:31:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:31:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228295] Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211231.l1LCVUCw013608@bugzilla.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: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228295 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 12:38:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:38:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211238.l1LCcF9Z013942@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 07:38 EST ------- Well, according to your message it seems usual that the game specific directories under %{_var}/games are not deleted, and I don't disagree to leave the directories undeleted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 12:54:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:54:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220736] Review Request: doclifter - lifts man pages and other troff-based markups to XML-DocBook In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211254.l1LCs8st015099@bugzilla.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: doclifter - lifts man pages and other troff-based markups to XML-DocBook https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220736 bugs.michael at gmx.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CANTFIX CC|bugs.michael at gmx.net | OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |201449 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-21 07:54 EST ------- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01006.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 12:56:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:56:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211256.l1LCuPqf015335@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-21 07:56 EST ------- OK, New version here with the 2 issues mentioned in comment 5 fixed: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/KoboDeluxe.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/KoboDeluxe-0.4-0.3.pre10.fc7.src.rpm This should be the last iteration. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 13:03:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:03:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228782] Review Request: tcl-html - HTML documentation for Tcl/Tk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211303.l1LD35lT016106@bugzilla.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: tcl-html - HTML documentation for Tcl/Tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228782 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-21 08:03 EST ------- These are nice arguments, but many packages have documentation included in one package. I don't want split them now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 13:15:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:15:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] New: Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) 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=229476 Summary: Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/xblast.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/xblast-2.10.4-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: This is the new SDL version of XBlast, a multiplayer game where the "purpose" is to Blast the other players of the gamefield by laying bombs close to them. While at the same time you must avoid being blown up yourself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 13:16:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:16:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229477] New: Review Request: xblast-data - Data files for the game xblast 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=229477 Summary: Review Request: xblast-data - Data files for the game xblast Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/xblast-data.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/xblast-data-2.10.0-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: This package contains the data files for XBlast, a multiplayer game where the "purpose" is to Blast the other players of the gamefield by laying bombs close to them. While at the same time you must avoid being blown up yourself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 13:17:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:17:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211317.l1LDHvJN017003@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-21 08:17 EST ------- Notice that the review request for the required xblast-data is in bug 229477 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 13:18:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:18:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229477] Review Request: xblast-data - Data files for the game xblast In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211318.l1LDI2UI017016@bugzilla.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: xblast-data - Data files for the game xblast https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229477 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-21 08:18 EST ------- Notice that the review request for the xblast game-engine is in bug 229476 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 13:19:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:19:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] New: Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager 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=229478 Summary: Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/qdbm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/qdbm-1.8.74-1.fc7.src.rpm Mockbuild log on FC7 i386: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/LOGS/MOCK-qdbm.log Description: QDBM is an embedded database library compatible with GDBM and NDBM. It features hash database and B+ tree database and is developed referring to GDBM for the purpose of the following three points: higher processing speed, smaller size of a database file, and simpler API. rpmlint on binary rpm: W: qdbm++-devel no-documentation W: qdbm-java devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libjqdbm.so Well, I don't know well about java package, however I think that there is no need to create another -japa-devel package for this .so file. Co-maintainers are welcome!! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 13:25:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:25:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206238] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211325.l1LDPEoF017566@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206238 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 08:25 EST ------- Hello, Akira and Parag: I rechecked Akira's srpm/spec and resumbitted as a new request as bug 229478. If you are interested, I would appreciate if you review my review request. Thanks. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 229478 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 13:25:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:25:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211325.l1LDPGRt017582@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tagoh at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 08:25 EST ------- *** Bug 206238 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 14:20:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:20:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211420.l1LEKC9v022440@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-21 09:20 EST ------- New build: Spec URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/dekorator.spec SRPM URL: http://www.snoekie.com/rpm/dekorator-0.3-3.src.rpm Changes: - Added "Requires: kdebase" as this package is useless without kwin - Install the "ugly" theme (moved it from %doc) - Created "remove_theme_paths_button" patch to remove the config dialog's "set theme paths" button - Created "default_theme" patch to set a first-time default theme - Fixed the Bushido-Yellow theme's masks to make it usable - Install the "Bushido-Yellow" theme by default - Added "dekorator.fedora" to %doc to explain why some extra themes are modified/omitted - Created "config_help_tab" patch to make the config dialog use HTML help (and fix some typos) Notes: (In reply to comment #6) #002: I modified the masks for the Bushido-Yellow-theme to make it work properly, and decided to include it. I did, however create the dekorator.fedora file detailing the reason for this modification and why "K-Style: Infinity" was left out. #005: I have decided _not_ to drop the XHTML documentation and rather modified the application to make use of it; it looks *much* better this way, especially because of the use of tables instead of dodgy ascii art. Besides, we now have the added advantage of being able to read the documentation without using kcontrol. In addition, I added the 1/2 lines that were missing from it (which were present in the text-only kcontrol module's original docs. This patch is fairly portable; if the documentation file is not found, the application will fall back to the original text... and yes, I fixed that typo :-) (#003). I also fixed a typo on the "about" dialog. #006: Done. The engine now loads the "Default-theme" by default (even when the user clicks on the "Defaults" button), and I've eliminated the "Set theme button" completely - configuring the engine now feels much more like configuring a "normal" kwin decoration. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 14:20:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:20:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225797] Merge Review: gimp-data-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211420.l1LEKiIB022558@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gimp-data-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225797 nphilipp at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nphilipp at redhat.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org External Bug| |http://bugzilla.gnome.org/sh Reference| |ow_bug.cgi?id=410387 Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From nphilipp at redhat.com 2007-02-21 09:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Random first notes: > * Release (1.1.1) should be an integer. You may also add %{?dist} if you wish. > * separate the BuildRequires into two lines. It's not very obvious now. > * change BuildRoot to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > * remove the dot at the end of Summary. > * As /usr/bin is in the execution path, saying /usr/bin/gimptool in the install > section is not necessary. Just use "gimptool", which makes the spec more legible. all fixed in CVS > * Use %defattr (-, root, root, -) instead of %defattr (-, root, root) I've used "%defattr (-, root, root, 0755)" . Using "-" as dirmode (instead of none) doesn't make a difference, both mean "keep mode of the directory as found". > * The license filed says GPL, while there is nothing in the source tarball that > confirms that. The COPYING file is also empty. (BLOCKER) filed upstream at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410387 > * You should ship some of the files as %doc (at least AUTHORS, ChangeLog, NEWS, > and README). > * The spec file is not UTF-8. (BLOCKER) > * The install root is not cleaned at the beginning of %install all fixed in CVS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 14:20:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:20:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211420.l1LEKuVM022584@bugzilla.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: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 ------- Additional Comments From aconway at redhat.com 2007-02-21 09:20 EST ------- Main owner is myself, fedora account aconway. cvsextras requested, mailed wtogami at redhat.com directly with contact info to talk today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 14:21:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:21:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225797] Merge Review: gimp-data-extras In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211421.l1LELu69022699@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gimp-data-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225797 nphilipp at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alikins at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nphilipp at redhat.com 2007-02-21 09:21 EST ------- Added Adrian on Cc, as he is (was) upstream, at least partly. Adrian, can you shed some light on the licensing question? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 14:43:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:43:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225992] Merge Review: libcap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211443.l1LEhefZ024866@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libcap https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225992 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-21 09:43 EST ------- libcap-1.10-28 has some common review issues fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:08:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:08:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226050] Merge Review: libtool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211508.l1LF8gHZ027343@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libtool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226050 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-21 10:08 EST ------- libtool-1.5.22-10 prepared for review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:13:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:13:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229490] New: Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline 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=229490 Summary: Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: maxime.carron at fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://carron.maxime.free.fr/fedora/rpms/pypar2.spec SRPM URL: http://carron.maxime.free.fr/fedora/rpms/pypar2-1.2-1.fc6.src.rpm Description: A graphical frontend to par2cmdline written in Python. This is the first RPM I propose on Extras. I've been helped by the french community (a small review have already been done : http://forums.fedora-fr.org/viewtopic.php?id=18581) As it's the first time I contribute, I also need a sponsor. Thanks, Maxime -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:16:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:16:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226100] Merge Review: lksctp-tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211516.l1LFGeeP028939@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lksctp-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226100 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-21 10:16 EST ------- lksctp-tools-1.0.6-3.fc7 prepared for review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:23:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:23:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225683] Merge Review: dev86 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211523.l1LFNh0X029759@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dev86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225683 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-21 10:23 EST ------- I patched the makefile to pass the RPM_OPT_FLAGS to the dev86 part compiled by gcc, and here we go: (seems like ncc needs additional fixing...) ncc -c -Mn -O -D__LIBC__ -D__LIBC_VER__='"0.16.17"' -o crt0.o crt0.c *** buffer overflow detected ***: ncc terminated ======= Backtrace: ========= /lib/libc.so.6(__chk_fail+0x41)[0x245361] /lib/libc.so.6[0x245aa8] ncc[0x8049047] ncc[0x804ae62] /lib/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xdc)[0x179f2c] ncc[0x8048901] ======= Memory map: ======== 00147000-00160000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 3820099 /lib/ld-2.5.so 00160000-00161000 r-xp 00018000 03:02 3820099 /lib/ld-2.5.so 00161000-00162000 rwxp 00019000 03:02 3820099 /lib/ld-2.5.so 00164000-0029b000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 3820100 /lib/libc-2.5.so 0029b000-0029d000 r-xp 00137000 03:02 3820100 /lib/libc-2.5.so 0029d000-0029e000 rwxp 00139000 03:02 3820100 /lib/libc-2.5.so 0029e000-002a1000 rwxp 0029e000 00:00 0 04225000-04230000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 3819945 /lib/libgcc_s-4.1.1-20070105.so.1 04230000-04231000 rwxp 0000a000 03:02 3819945 /lib/libgcc_s-4.1.1-20070105.so.1 08048000-0804d000 r-xp 00000000 03:02 4285554 /home/jnovy/CVS/dev86/devel/dev86-0.16.17/bin/ncc 0804d000-0804e000 rwxp 00004000 03:02 4285554 /home/jnovy/CVS/dev86/devel/dev86-0.16.17/bin/ncc 09b79000-09b9a000 rwxp 09b79000 00:00 0 40000000-40001000 r-xp 40000000 00:00 0 [vdso] 40001000-40002000 rw-p 40001000 00:00 0 4001a000-4001b000 rw-p 4001a000 00:00 0 bfe8d000-bfea2000 rw-p bfe8d000 00:00 0 [stack] make[4]: *** [crt0.o] Aborted make[4]: Leaving directory `/home/jnovy/CVS/dev86/devel/dev86-0.16.17/libc' make[3]: *** [library] Error 2 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/jnovy/CVS/dev86/devel/dev86-0.16.17' make[2]: *** [all] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/jnovy/CVS/dev86/devel/dev86-0.16.17' make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jnovy/CVS/dev86/devel/dev86-0.16.17' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.64192 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:38:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:38:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226314] Merge Review: prctl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211538.l1LFc4HH031211@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: prctl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226314 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-21 10:38 EST ------- prctl-1.5-2 prepared for review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:38:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:38:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211538.l1LFcRZC031260@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-21 10:38 EST ------- no review ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:47:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:47:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211547.l1LFlJuw032529@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 10:47 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > This should be the last iteration. Actually!! ------------------------------------------- This package (KoboDeluxe) is APPROVED by me ------------------------------------------- Well, the process of importing new packages changed. So pleace recheck from step 8 of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:49:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:49:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220393] Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211549.l1LFn7ol000316@bugzilla.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: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(seefeld at sympatico. | |ca) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 10:49 EST ------- Again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:50:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:50:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225957] Merge Review: k3b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211550.l1LFoocV000506@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: k3b https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |229420 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:51:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225957] Merge Review: k3b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211551.l1LFpVNi000602@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: k3b https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-21 10:51 EST ------- Once merge is complete, *this* package can/should: Obsoletes: k3b-extras < %{version}-%{release} Provides: k3b-extras = %{version}-%{release} BuildRequires: libmpcdec-devel BuildRequires: libsndfile-devel and add %configure options: --with-musepack --with-sndfile See also bug #229420 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:52:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:52:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226526] Merge Review: vim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211552.l1LFqwA1000718@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226526 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-21 10:52 EST ------- fixed in vim-7.0.195-2.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 15:56:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:56:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211556.l1LFuLaA001069@bugzilla.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: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 16:06:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:06:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211606.l1LG6VHf002397@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-21 11:06 EST ------- Well, After had a look on the spec file, all things seem good, except the --vendor tag which shouldn't be set to "fedora". I'm plan to modify the packaging Guidlines's page to notify that stuff. I'll make a full review within a day. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 16:18:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:18:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211618.l1LGIJvg003505@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-21 11:18 EST ------- So the section in the guidelines on using the vendor option to desktop-file-install is incorrect? Are you sure? The section you linked to previously wasn't related to desktop-file-install but instead to Vendor: tags in the specfile header. Do you think you could help me out with a link to any discussion on where this was changed? I could easily have missed it if the packaging committee recently changed this. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 16:27:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:27:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211627.l1LGR3lA004185@bugzilla.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: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-21 11:27 EST ------- Hi Maxime, I'll make a full review within a day, in the meantime you find out a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 16:45:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:45:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227108] Review Request: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211645.l1LGju8N005820@bugzilla.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: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227108 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-21 11:45 EST ------- > NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > > -- > $ rpmlint plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.1.b4.3jpp.1.src.rpm > W: plexus-xmlrpc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 63) > (minor warnings, should be fine) > -- Again, rpmlint does not generate this warning for me. This is very strange, espeically since we are running the same version of rpmlint. > NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters > > -- > a couple of lines are longer than 80 chars (lines 147, 153) > -- I noticed this before and had tried fixing it, but I would have problems building. So, I decided to just leave them. I've also been told that as long as rpmlint doesn't complain, then not to worry about it. Whether there is anything else you would like me to fix or not, let me know. When I hear from you I will build this package on mock. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 16:46:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:46:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229391] Review Request: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211646.l1LGk8Ew005868@bugzilla.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: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229391 sundaram at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sundaram at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From sundaram at redhat.com 2007-02-21 11:46 EST ------- Perhaps you can call this package s-c-crashdump or something more generic. We have had several different implementations to get kernel crash dumps. Maybe we will have a different one in the future. Just a suggestion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 16:51:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:51:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227108] Review Request: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211651.l1LGptAx006278@bugzilla.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: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227108 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 11:51 EST ------- OK, thanks for addressing those, I agree they're fine... I'm marking as fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 16:53:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:53:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227095] Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211653.l1LGrpLA006385@bugzilla.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: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227095 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-21 11:53 EST ------- > NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > > -- > $ rpmlint plexus-appserver-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.1.src.rpm > W: plexus-appserver mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 91) > (minor warnings, should be fine) Again, rpmlint does not generate this warning for me. >Btw, this section: > >%if %{gcj_support} >if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ] >then > %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db >fi >%endif > >seems to be repeated in the spec file (lines 177-182) Fixed. If there's anything else let me know. When I hear back from you, I'll build it in mock. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 16:54:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:54:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211654.l1LGso6H006451@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 rc040203 at freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rc040203 at freenet.de OtherBugsDependingO| |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-21 11:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > /me suspects some jade config clashes caused by updates Probably, I found my sgml/xml catalogs were broken ;) Package builds fine under FC6 and FC7 now, unfortunately between all these "proposals", I've lost oversight on what the current way is to approve a package. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 17:01:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:01:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228295] Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211701.l1LH17q3006759@bugzilla.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: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228295 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 12:00 EST ------- Well, for 0.8.7b-1: * gettext po file - Can't the gettext po files under .po/ directory be used for this program? (One possibility is that with adding gettext as BuildRequires, gettext may try to compile po files automatically, or you have to use msgfmt manually anyway). * Documentation - What is the following files? --------------------------------------------------- ./src/NOATUN_AUTHORS --------------------------------------------------- * index.docbook Usually KDE applications try to install index.docbook (here ./doc/en/index.docbook) under /usr/share/doc/HTML/. For this packages, can this be ignored? * Other miscs - What are the files under ./wafadmin directory? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 17:09:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:09:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211709.l1LH9nAE007439@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 matt at rudeserver.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From matt at rudeserver.com 2007-02-21 12:09 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rudeconfig Short Description: C++ library for manipulating configuration and .ini files Owners: matt at rudeserver.com Branches: FC-6 FC-5 InitialCC: mflood at fuelcellstore.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 17:20:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:20:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226053] Merge Review: libusb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211720.l1LHK0ia008070@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: libusb https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226053 ------- Additional Comments From jnovy at redhat.com 2007-02-21 12:19 EST ------- Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 17:32:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:32:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211732.l1LHWGjB008837@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(peter at thecodergeek | |.com) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 12:32 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 17:35:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:35:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211735.l1LHZ5uW009104@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(kwizart at gmail.com) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 12:35 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 17:39:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:39:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211739.l1LHdTXM010020@bugzilla.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: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-21 12:39 EST ------- SRPMS: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/elektra/elektra-0.6.4-4.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SPECS: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/elektra/elektra.spec Summary: A key/value pair database to store software configurations I've added %config(noreplace) as rpmlint remain silent this way. I asked confirmation on the extras ml for this... Also used static-devel so rpmlint consider it as a devel package. I will check how it works with mock fc7 and also start a sight on oyranos... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 17:53:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:53:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211753.l1LHrsvp011450@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-21 12:53 EST ------- Updated. Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-6.src.rpm More docs included, and busted out rpath forever by simply using external libtool.It builds fine in mock, rpmlint not complain. Please help with a review ! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 17:55:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211755.l1LHtIPb011664@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-21 12:55 EST ------- I usually prefer setting all permissions in the %files section as you can't end up with some unwantend world-writable files this way. But I agree that this can only happen when you rely on 'make install' and not when you run the install binary on your own. Anyway, fixed in -11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 18:00:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:00:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227099] Review Request: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211800.l1LI03C0012371@bugzilla.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: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227099 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-21 12:59 EST ------- Here are the links to an updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/234/plexus-cdc.spec SOURCE RPM: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/235/plexus-cdc-1.0-0.1.a4.2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 18:26:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:26:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211826.l1LIQDj9014875@bugzilla.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: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 jkeating at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(steved at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-21 13:26 EST ------- You're supposed to add in the spec comments about the changes you've applied. There are still mixed spaces/tabs, (spaces: line 3, tab: line 48) Requires: libtirpc is redundant. RPM automatically picks up and adds a requirement on libtirpc.so.1()(64bit) (for 64bit builds). You don't need to list the libtirpc Requirement. rpcbind is enabled by default, is there good reason for this? Must be asked of any service that is enabled by default. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 18:33:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:33:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211833.l1LIXAUc015947@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 13:33 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148521) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148521&action=view) mock build log of gdal-1.4.0-6.fc7 Mockbuild of gdal-1.4.0-6 fails on FC7 i386 at least due to missing libtool. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 18:39:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:39:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211839.l1LIdvNr017086@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-21 13:39 EST ------- Updated. Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-7.src.rpm sorry. i forgot to require libtool. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 18:40:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:40:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211840.l1LIe8dP017124@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-21 13:40 EST ------- Finally I built tcl with ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}%{majorver} %{buildroot}%{_prefix}/lib/%{name}%{majorver} When I change it, I couldn't built it on x86_64 so I ended with this solution for backward compatibility. Tcl-html wasn't be separated, because: - many packages have documentation in one package. - the documentation isn't huge. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 18:41:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:41:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227105] Review Request: plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.a9.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211841.l1LIf550017211@bugzilla.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: plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.a9.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227105 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 18:43:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:43:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211843.l1LIhZ04017530@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-21 13:43 EST ------- Now I have Source0: ftp://ftp.uk.linux.org/pub/linux/Networking/netkit/netkit-ftp-%{version}.tar.gz -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 18:47:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:47:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225288] Merge Review: at In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211847.l1LIlNOP017811@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-21 13:47 EST ------- Ad comment #3: I was lazy to write all this things, but I really appreciate your help. I thought the same things. At has some strange permission, but it's perfectly ok for his functionality. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 18:48:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:48:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229533] New: Review Request: perl-Template-GD - GD plugin(s) for the Template Toolkit 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=229533 Summary: Review Request: perl-Template-GD - GD plugin(s) for the Template Toolkit Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tcallawa at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-Template-GD.spec SRPM URL: http://auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/perl-Template-GD-2.66-1.src.rpm Description: The Template-GD distribution provides a number of Template Toolkit plugin modules to interface with Lincoln Stein's GD modules. These in turn provide an interface to Thomas Boutell's GD graphics library. These plugins were distributed as part of the Template Toolkit until version 2.15 released in February 2006. At this time they were extracted into this separate distribution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 19:01:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:01:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211901.l1LJ1eYv018678@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-21 14:01 EST ------- > %exclude %{_datadir}/konwert/devel > %exclude %{_libdir}/konwert/devel Should be put in "%files devel" without "%exclude" macros. rpmlint output: form srpm: W: konwert mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 68, tab: line 1) easy fix ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 19:27:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:27:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211927.l1LJRrYb021289@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-21 14:27 EST ------- -devel will not build this in mock ... libtool from -devel contain: sys_lib_search_path_spec=`echo " /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/ /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/ /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../x86_64-redhat-linux/lib/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/ /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../x86_64-redhat-linux/lib/ /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/ /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../ /lib/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/ /lib/ /usr/lib/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/ /usr/lib/" | $SED -e "s@${gcc_dir}@\${gcc_dir}@g;s@${gcc_ver}@\${gcc_ver}@g"` and -devel use gcc 4.1.2 ... fill bugreport for -devel ?! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 19:34:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:34:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211934.l1LJYZUQ022161@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-21 14:34 EST ------- filled bz#229541 against libtool from fedora. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 19:35:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:35:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211935.l1LJZip7022401@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |229541 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 19:37:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:37:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211937.l1LJb0a6022610@bugzilla.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: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 steved at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(steved at redhat.com)| ------- Additional Comments From steved at redhat.com 2007-02-21 14:36 EST ------- > There are still mixed spaces/tabs, (spaces: line 3, tab: line 48) There were a couple other places as well... I think I got them all.. > Requires: libtirpc is redundant. RPM automatically picks up and adds a > requirement on libtirpc.so.1()(64bit) (for 64bit builds). You don't need to > list the libtirpc Requirement. Didn't know rpm will do an ldd to figure out which libs are needed... > rpcbind is enabled by default, is there good reason for this? Well this is a portmapper replacement so not only should rpcbind be enable by default, the portmapper needed to be turn off or even removed One final note, the rpcinfo and its man page that are installed from glibc-common need to be removed as well... How does one do that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 19:44:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:44:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226295] Merge Review: php-pear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211944.l1LJiZRb023732@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php-pear Alias: php-pear https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-21 14:44 EST ------- ==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ==== W: php-pear invalid-license The PHP License v3.0 W: php-pear invalid-license The PHP License v3.0 Trivial fix. W: php-pear conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rpm/macros.pear okay. W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.__uri W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.__uri W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.depdblock E: php-pear zero-length /usr/share/pear/.depdblock W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.depdb W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.lock E: php-pear zero-length /usr/share/pear/.lock W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.filemap W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.pkgxml W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.pkgxml W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.pecl.php.net W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry/.channel.pecl.php.net W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels/.alias W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.channels/.alias E: php-pear zero-length /usr/share/pear/test/Structures_Graph/tests/README W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry W: php-pear hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/pear/.registry these are okay E: php-pear non-executable-script /usr/share/pear/test/Structures_Graph/tests/all-tests.php 0644 E: php-pear non-executable-script /usr/share/pear/doc/Structures_Graph/docs/generate.sh 0644 E: php-pear non-executable-script /usr/share/pear/data/Structures_Graph/genpackage.xml.pl 0644 E: php-pear non-executable-script /usr/share/pear/data/Structures_Graph/publish.sh 0644 E: php-pear non-executable-script /usr/share/pear/data/Structures_Graph/package.sh 0644 Trivial fix W: php-pear setup-not-quiet okay E: php-pear use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR Trivial fix W: php-pear no-%build-section Must fix. Trivial - package named according to package naming guidelines - spec file name matches %{name} - package meets packaging guidelines - licensed with open source compatible license - license matches actual license - license file included in %doc - spec written in American english - spec file legible - sources match upstream d7ec831fe6439fae783b56bd8499ee17 install-pear-nozlib.phar - package successfully compiles and builds on FC-6 x86_64 - all build depenedencies listed in BR - no locales - no shared library files - not relocatable - package owns all directories it creates - directories it does not created owned by filesystem or rpm - no duplicates in %files - file permissions set properly - contains proper %clean - macro usage consistent - contains code - no large documentation - files in %doc do not affect runtime - no header files or static libraries - no pkgconfig files - no libraries with suffixes - no devel subpackage requried - no libtool archives - not a GUI app - package does not own files or directories owned by other packages ==== MUST FIX ==== - MUST add empty %build section. I simply cannot approve this with a straight face when every single other pear package is requried to have this. Either we go through all the trouble to fix the pear template, or you simply add an empty %build. - Fix non-executable-script rpmlint warnings - Change Source0 to: http://pear.php.net/install-pear-nozlib.phar or else add this URL in a comment above Source0 ==== SHOULD FIX ==== - Change license tag to "PHP License" or "PHP Licnese 3.0" - Remove RPM_SOURCE_DIR from spec file. This is a community project, not a Joe Orton project, and consistent thinking is the hobgoblin of a feeble mind (or something like that). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 19:49:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:49:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702211949.l1LJnNis024500@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-21 14:49 EST ------- sorry mistake new license is not GPLv2 is Public Domain, as maintainer requested to do. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 20:04:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:04:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212004.l1LK4bj1025901@bugzilla.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: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 ------- Additional Comments From steved at redhat.com 2007-02-21 15:04 EST ------- Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/rpcbind/rpcbind.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/steved/rpcbind/rpcbind-0.1.4-1.fc7.src.rpm have been updated! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 20:20:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 216723] Review Request: libsieve - A library for parsing, sorting and filtering your mail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212020.l1LKKso9027041@bugzilla.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: libsieve - A library for parsing, sorting and filtering your mail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216723 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 20:23:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:23:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212023.l1LKNuan027307@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 20:24:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:24:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212024.l1LKO5iL027334@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 20:46:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:46:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227099] Review Request: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212046.l1LKk0lY029534@bugzilla.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: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227099 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 15:45 EST ------- plexus-cdc-1.0-0.1.a4.2jpp.1.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NA * license text included in package and marked with %doc (not included) OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on .srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint plexus-cdc-1.0-0.1.a4.2jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-cdc non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-cdc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 56) (minor warnings, should be fine) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters -- lines 54, 131, 138 are longer than 80 chars -- OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath OK * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NA * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock Notes: - lines 165-170 are duplicates, should be removed: %if %{gcj_support} if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ] then %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db fi %endif As discussed regarding a different package, I'm including the comments about rpmlint and long lines just for the sake of completeness, they may be safely ignored -- ie, I will mark as fedora-review+ as soon as the duplicate lines are removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 20:49:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:49:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226192] Merge Review: net-snmp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212049.l1LKn1la029692@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: net-snmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226192 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-21 15:48 EST ------- The problem with executable documentation is that it often creates dependencies which should not be there. For example, the /usr/bin/perl dependency comes from the documentation. This package does depend on libperl.so so it turns out that this doesn't happen to be dependency bloat, but if someone ever decided to split off a perl-libs package then you'd be needlessly pulling in the Perl interpreter. Still, there's no guideline in place against You could always skip the test suite on s390 using %ifarch, if you think there's real benefit to running it. Upgrades certainly aren't supported from RHEL2.1 to RHEL5 (or obviously any Fedora release) so nobody could argue that as a reason to keep the Obsoletes around. I do wish I could help with patches, but unfortunately I know little of the internals of this piece of software and there are something like 900 more core packages that need reviewing. If I have the time I will try to assist in at least fixing the specfile issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 20:58:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:58:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227095] Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212058.l1LKwlst030282@bugzilla.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: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227095 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 15:58 EST ------- Marking fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:12:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:12:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227047] Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212112.l1LLCXD6031397@bugzilla.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: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:12 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp Short Description: Classworlds Classloader Framework Owners: nsantos at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels at redhat.com,dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:13:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:13:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 170701] Review Request: php-Smarty - Template/Presentation Framework for PHP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212113.l1LLD8oP031501@bugzilla.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: php-Smarty - Template/Presentation Framework for PHP https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=170701 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|fedora-extras- | |list at redhat.com | CC| |fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com CC|fedora-package- | |review at redhat.com | CC| |fedora-extras- | |list at redhat.com chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-21 16:12 EST ------- Ownership change request, see: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-February/msg00331.html New owner should be: chris.stone at gmail.com -- 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 Wed Feb 21 21:13:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:13:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212113.l1LLDsF4031536@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command Alias: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-21 16:13 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148534) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148534&action=view) Proposed patch to remove Apache 2 licensed material - if needed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:14:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:14:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212114.l1LLEkpV031758@bugzilla.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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:14 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp Short Description: A Java DTD Parser Owners: nsantos at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels at redhat.com,dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:16:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:16:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227057] Review Request: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212116.l1LLGv98031961@bugzilla.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: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227057 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:16 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp Short Description: Java NFA regular expression engine implementation Owners: nsantos at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels at redhat.com,dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:17:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:17:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212117.l1LLHx9e032056@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:17 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp Short Description: HTML syntax checker and pretty printer Owners: nsantos at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels at redhat.com,dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:20:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227112] Review Request: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212120.l1LLKlb3032226@bugzilla.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: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227112 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:20 EST ------- Marking fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:21:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:21:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226192] Merge Review: net-snmp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212121.l1LLLZJ9032279@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: net-snmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226192 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(rvokal at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:21 EST ------- By the soon to be ratified process, further work is required by the package owner, (and even though it isn't entirely logical) NEEDINFO is to point at the package owner until that work is done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:24:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:24:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227112] Review Request: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212124.l1LLOl86032635@bugzilla.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: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227112 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:24 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp Short Description: RELAX NG Datatype API Owners: nsantos at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels at redhat.com,dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:26:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:26:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227119] Review Request: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212126.l1LLQAxA000336@bugzilla.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: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227119 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:25 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp Short Description: Open source implementation of JAXB Owners: nsantos at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels at redhat.com,dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:27:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:27:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212127.l1LLRgRS000463@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-21 16:27 EST ------- > -bi --short-circuit builds work just fine for me with a > mktemp -ud BuildRoot when it's specified in a specfile. Define "work just fine". You do get a new buildroot with every invocation of rpmbuild, don't you? Effectively, these newly created buildroots pile up to a gigantic pile of crap. Subsequent invocations of rpmbuild do not remove the old buildroots automatically as it is done with a predictable buildroot filename. In situations when --short-circuit is really helpful, the pile of buildroots gets inconvenient to navigate in and requires work-arounds. Hence a mandatory buildroot that uses mktemp would turn against packagers and would be a bad decision. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:29:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:29:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228894] Review Request: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212129.l1LLTTY5000618@bugzilla.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: rpcbind - converts RPC program numbers into universal addresses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228894 jkeating at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:29 EST ------- Looks good now. The last thing would be coordinating the Obsoletes/Provides with portmap for the removal of portmap. I'm approving this package (although I'm still not happy about the init script being marked as a config file) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:31:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:31:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212131.l1LLVJFf000839@bugzilla.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: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:31 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp Short Description: XML:DB API for Java Owners: nsantos at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels at redhat.com,dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:34:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:34:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212134.l1LLYBTs001112@bugzilla.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: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227125 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:33 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xom-1.0-3jpp Short Description: XML Pull Parser Owners: nsantos at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels at redhat.com,dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:35:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:35:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212135.l1LLZAH3001255@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:35 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp Short Description: XML Pull Parser Owners: nsantos at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels at redhat.com,dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:37:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:37:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212137.l1LLbbxr001432@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-21 16:37 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16) > You do get a new buildroot with every invocation of rpmbuild, don't you? No, only on rpmbuilds that go into %install. That's due to using the -u switch of mktemp. Quite clever and credits go to Ville for that. > In situations when --short-circuit is really helpful, the pile of buildroots > gets inconvenient Forget I mentioned --short-circuit, Ville's trick deals fine with that, and I simply trusted some mails I had read w/o checking, so --short-circuit is not an issue. The only remaining bit is running %install w/o %clean. This will indeed leave buildroots behind. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:38:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:38:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228159] Review Request: new-stuff-manager - program that runs in the background and downloads/installs plugins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212138.l1LLcvO0001522@bugzilla.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: new-stuff-manager - program that runs in the background and downloads/installs plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228159 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-21 16:38 EST ------- Source0 should be what you have for URL: - a full url path to the source. URL should be a url to the webpage of the project or other information on the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:40:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:40:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197565] Review Request: buildbot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212140.l1LLeLlo001646@bugzilla.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: buildbot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197565 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:46:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:46:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212146.l1LLkLWC002237@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 jkeating at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From jkeating at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:46 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: koji Short Description: Build system tools Owners: jkeating at redhat.com,mikem at redhat.com Branches: FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:49:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:49:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227126] Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212149.l1LLnPPq002560@bugzilla.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: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:49 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xpp2 Short Description: XML Pull Parser Owners: nsantos at redhat.com Branches: InitialCC: rafaels at redhat.com,dbhole at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:51:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:51:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198816] Review Request: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212151.l1LLplWk002770@bugzilla.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: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198816 ------- Additional Comments From cfeist at redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:51 EST ------- I've updated the package. I don't know what 'missing-mandatory-lsb-tag' means and can't find any documentation on how to fix those errors. All other errors should be fixed. There is no central location for the gfs-utils-0.1.11.tar.gz script, it's pulled directly out of cvs which is found at sources.redhat.com/cluster/ http://people.redhat.com/cfeist/gfs-utils-0.1.11-3.src.rpm Let me know what else I need for this rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:53:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212153.l1LLr3Kn002892@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-21 16:52 EST ------- I did refer to --short-circuit commands in my entire comment. Please do try the proposed buildroot with --short-circuit and prove that it doesn't do what I've written in comment 16. Option -u does not prevent mktemp from returning a new path with every invocation. > The only remaining bit is running %install w/o %clean. ?? But --short-circuit -i does execute %install, so that is where the crap starts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 21:57:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229591] New: Review Request: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) 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=229591 Summary: Review Request: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: patrick.pichon at laposte.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ezix.org/software/files/lshw-B.02.10.tar.gz SRPM URL: http://ezix.org/software/files/lshw-B.02.10.tar.gz Description: lshw (Hardware Lister) is a small tool to provide detailed information on the hardware configuration of the machine. It can report exact memory configuration, firmware version, mainboard configuration, CPU version and speed, cache configuration, bus speed, etc. on DMI-capable x86 or EFI (IA-64) systems and on some PowerPC machines PS/ I have found that tools very useful and already available on various distribution -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:03:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:03:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212203.l1LM3BBE004264@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:20:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:20:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227126] Review Request: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212220.l1LMKmlR006641@bugzilla.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: xpp2-2.1.10-6jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227126 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:21:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:21:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212221.l1LML52W006678@bugzilla.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: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227125 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:20:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:20:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227127] Review Request: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212220.l1LMKtj4006650@bugzilla.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: xpp3-1.1.3.4-1.o.2jpp - XML Pull Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227127 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:21:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:21:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227123] Review Request: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212221.l1LMLC5s006706@bugzilla.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: xmldb-api-0.1-0.20041010.3jpp - XML:DB API for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227123 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:21:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:21:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227119] Review Request: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212221.l1LMLGng006726@bugzilla.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: ws-jaxme-0.5.1-1jpp - Open source implementation of JAXB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227119 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:21:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:21:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212221.l1LMLQOZ006745@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-21 17:21 EST ------- SPEC: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-PHPUnit.spec SRPM: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-PHPUnit-3.0.4-1.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Feb 21 2007 Christohper Stone 3.0.4-1 - Upstream sync -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:21:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:21:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212221.l1LMLg79006787@bugzilla.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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:21:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:21:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227112] Review Request: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212221.l1LMLiUu006801@bugzilla.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: relaxngDatatype-1.0-3jpp - RELAX NG Datatype API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227112 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:21:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:21:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227057] Review Request: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212221.l1LMLp3M006834@bugzilla.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: gnu-regexp-1.1.4-10jpp - Java NFA regular expression engine implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227057 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:22:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:22:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227047] Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212222.l1LMMEtA006905@bugzilla.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: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:22:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:22:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212222.l1LMMGox006914@bugzilla.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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:27:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:27:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212227.l1LMRSfn007365@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net 2007-02-21 17:27 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16) > You do get a new buildroot with every invocation of rpmbuild, don't you? > Effectively, these newly created buildroots pile up to a gigantic pile of > crap. (In reply to comment #18) > Please do try the proposed buildroot with --short-circuit and > prove that it doesn't do what I've written in comment 16. Option > -u does not prevent mktemp from returning a new path with > every invocation. Prove? It's true that it *returns* a new buildroot on every invocation, but it does not *create* it, no "gigantic pile of crap" is generated by merely invoking rpmbuild as you wrote. E.g. rpmbuild -bp/-bc are not creating anything. And that's why --short-circuit has nothing to do with this here, unless you would had been suggesting packages that use %buildroot in %prep and %build, which (almost) all agree to be A Bad Thing. Anyway whoever is smart enough to make diligent use of --short-circuit will be able to use his favourite external %buildroot setting as well. But for the normal non-short-circuit case there is still a small bitter pill left, that seperated %install and %clean of rpmbuilds will leave buildroots behind. Ceterum censeo clausulum definendam buildrootium coactum esse esse delendam. Ceterum censeo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:41:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:41:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212241.l1LMfV1M008112@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-21 17:41 EST ------- I still only refer to --short-circuit commands. Get back to the quote that started this: > -bi --short-circuit builds work just fine for me with a > mktemp -ud BuildRoot when it's specified in a specfile. Do you see? -bi --short-circuit > Anyway whoever is smart enough to make diligent use of > --short-circuit will be able to use his favourite external > %buildroot setting as well. So, I must specify a BuildRoot in the spec only to override it in ~/.rpmmacros because it is over-engineered crap? Sad. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:48:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:48:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221906] Review Request: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212248.l1LMmPRU008381@bugzilla.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: gmediaserver - UPnP compatible media server for the GNU system Alias: gmediaserver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221906 bjohnson at symetrix.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bjohnson at symetrix.com Alias| |gmediaserver Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-21 17:48 EST ------- I will provide a review, but you will need to provide an init file first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:50:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:50:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212250.l1LMo19r008443@bugzilla.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: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-21 17:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > I've added %config(noreplace) as rpmlint remain silent this way. It is better to be correct than shut rpmlint. %config(noreplace) seems clearly wrong to me. %config could be acceptable, however. * the following is unusefull: Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig * /usr/bin/elektra-kdb_static should be removed from the main package * /usr/lib/elektra/*.la shouldn't be shipped * the scripts would better be in %doc than in /usr/share/elektra/scripts in my opinion. Or some could be in %doc and others in /usr/share/elektra/scripts * I won't object the prefixing with elektra although I don't like it that much. However 2 man pages became wrong: /usr/share/man/man5/elektra-elektra.5.gz /usr/share/man/man7/elektra-elektra.7.gz * The *.la files should not be in elektra-static-devel * The following is a bad idea (although it is likely that I added it): Requires: %{_sysconfdir}/profile.d * to have rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit working, you should add, before mkdir __doc and mkdir __doc-devel: rm -rf __doc __doc-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 22:56:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:56:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212256.l1LMubOM009064@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 ruben at rubenkerkhof.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-21 17:56 EST ------- Thanks. I don't see any further blockers so this package is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:10:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:10:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228159] Review Request: new-stuff-manager - program that runs in the background and downloads/installs plugins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212310.l1LNAmTH009890@bugzilla.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: new-stuff-manager - program that runs in the background and downloads/installs plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228159 ------- Additional Comments From marduk at k-d-w.org 2007-02-21 18:10 EST ------- Thanks for the advice. I changed it and updated files are available in the same location as above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:12:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:12:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212312.l1LNCJnZ009956@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From daniil.ivanov at gmail.com 2007-02-21 18:12 EST ------- Hi, attempt #3 http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/konwert.spec http://users.jyu.fi/~divanov/devel/konwert-1.8-9.fc7.src.rpm Xavier, how did you get warning about the spaces/tabs? rpmlint didn't give it for me. should I use some policy? Thanks, Daniil. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:16:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:16:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212316.l1LNGAi9010143@bugzilla.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: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-21 18:16 EST ------- Ok i will fix theses... It builds fine in mock for fc7... http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/elektra/build.log quotes: checking dynamic linker characteristics... cat: ld.so.conf.d/*.conf: No such file or directory (several times...) ... Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig yes i see, i will fix that. About scripts, is it fine to ln -s to %{_datadir}/elektra from doc since i'm not sure they were files in doc will have a executable bit set if needed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:19:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:19:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 198816] Review Request: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212319.l1LNJEaO010242@bugzilla.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: gfs-utils - global file system userland utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198816 ------- Additional Comments From ruben at rubenkerkhof.com 2007-02-21 18:19 EST ------- Thanks Chris, > E: gfs-utils missing-mandatory-lsb-tag Description > E: gfs-utils missing-mandatory-lsb-tag Short-Description Those errors are about the init file rpmlint checks that file for tags between ### BEGIN INIT INFO and ### END INIT INFO The checks are defined in /usr/share/rpmlint/InitScriptCheck.py A few new rpmlint warnings have popped up: [ruben at odin i386]$ rpmlint gfs-utils-0.1.11-3.i386.rpm W: gfs-utils dangling-relative-symlink /sbin/mount.gfs mount.gfs2 W: gfs-utils dangling-relative-symlink /sbin/umount.gfs umount.gfs2 [ruben at odin i386]$ rpmlint gfs-utils-debuginfo-0.1.11-3.i386.rpm W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/log.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/fs_dir.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/util.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/inode.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/fs_bits.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/rgrp.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/file.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/fs_bmap.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/bitmap.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/fs_inode.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/block_list.c W: gfs-utils-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gfs-0.1.11/libgfs/bio.c -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:20:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:20:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212320.l1LNKBxZ010277@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-21 18:20 EST ------- (In reply to comment #16) > > > Depending on itself: Er.. can you be more specific? > > The build is depending on coreutils commands, like mkdir > > Are we talking about BuildRequires tags or Requires tags? Please be specific > with the changes you'd like me to make -- also it would help if you number them. :-) I am talking about BuildRequires, and I don't really want that you do changes, since it seems impossible to me to remove those bootstrapping issues. But I'd like something like your opinion on that subject. > > There is still one /usr/bin: > > for i in env cut; do ln -sf ../../bin/$i $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/bin; done > > Take a look at the wider picture there: we are making compatibility symlinks for > binaries that used to be in /usr/bin but are now in /bin. We explicitly know > from the history of the packages where these binaries used to be. Changing a > variable is not going to change that. Changing /usr/bin here to be %{_bindir} > would be incorrect. I wouldn't say incorrect, but not using a macro seems correct. A suggestions: use the install-info scriptlets from the guidelines, they are simpler. So replace, in %preun [ -f %{_infodir}/%{name}.info.gz ] && \ /sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/%{name}.info* \ %{_infodir}/dir || : with /sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/%{name}.info %{_infodir}/dir || : and, in %post [ -f %{_infodir}/%{name}.info* ] && \ /sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/%{name}.info* %{_infodir}/dir || : with /sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/%{name}.info %{_infodir}/dir || : I find it very strange to use perl to do simple substitutions when a sed call does exactly the same. I don't have any other remark. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:22:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:22:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212322.l1LNMEdA010365@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-21 18:22 EST ------- * there should be a comment explaining why there are the %define for the find_provides (something along # filter out bogus perl(Autom4te*) dependencies And for ./configure instead of %configure a comment is needed too. * sed in BuildRequires is unneeded * gawk doesn't seem to be needed as BuildRequires nor as Requires Suggestions: * call the dependency generator files along autoconf-filter-provides.sh * remove .gz in install-info scriptlets -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:30:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:30:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226671] Merge Review: zlib In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212330.l1LNUtZC010629@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zlib https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226671 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-21 18:30 EST ------- * I don't like that much adding autotools support with a patch. Did upstream accept the patch? * zutil.h shouldn't be shipped * timestamp of .h and man files should be kept. * there is no description of the API. Please consider shipping the html pages as I suggest above (or any other description of the API). Suggestion: * in the libtool comment, replace bogus with unuseful, libtool is right in installing .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:34:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212334.l1LNYxDY010795@bugzilla.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: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-21 18:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > About scripts, is it fine to ln -s to %{_datadir}/elektra from doc since i'm not > sure they were files in doc will have a executable bit set if needed? Not really (%doc must not be runtome), but those files should be shipped with executable bit unset if they are documentation. The user should know how to set the exec bit or call them with an interpreter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:35:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:35:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229600] New: Review Request: specto - An desktop application that will watch configurable events 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=229600 Summary: Review Request: specto - An desktop application that will watch configurable events Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lxtnow at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/SPECS/specto.spec SRPM URL: http://blog.fedora-fr.org/public/smootherfrogz/RPMs/specto-0.2.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm Description: Specto is a desktop application that will watch configurable events (such as website updates, emails, file and folder changes, system processes, etc) and then trigger notifications. Specto can watch a website for updates and notify you when there is activity (otherwise, Specto will just stay out of the way). This changes the way you work, because you can be informed of events instead of having to look out for them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:36:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:36:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226398] Merge Review: scim-sinhala In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212336.l1LNa3aQ010846@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: scim-sinhala https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226398 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:40:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:40:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229391] Review Request: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212340.l1LNe7st011043@bugzilla.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: system-config-kdump - graphical tool for configuring kernel crash dumps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229391 ------- Additional Comments From dlehman at redhat.com 2007-02-21 18:40 EST ------- This package only intends to configure crash dumping via kdump/kexec, hence the name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:47:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:47:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229291] Review Request: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212347.l1LNlpdC011453@bugzilla.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: thinkfinger - A driver for the UPEK/SGS Thomson Microelectronics fingerprint reader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229291 belegdol at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:50:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:50:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212350.l1LNoKcq011522@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-21 18:50 EST ------- 2. ok. Checking out a copy from the above cvs, making a .tar.gz and diffing between that version and whats shipped in your src rpm shows one diffrence... you have a sysklogd.spec file in your tar.gz, which doesn't exist in cvs. I assume thats generated from the sysklogd.spec.in, so it can be ignored. Can you add a comment to the spec before the Source line indicating how someone could check out the source from rhlinux cvs? something like: # The source for this package was pulled from cvs. # Use the following commands to generate the tarball: # export CVSROOT=:pserver:anonymous at rhlinux.redhat.com:/usr/local/CVS # cvs login (hit return) # cvs co sysklogd # mv sysklogd sysklogd-%{version}rh # tar -czvf sysklogd-%{version}rh.tar.gz sysklogd-%{version}rh 5. There is indeed a dist tag. That was an old/outdated comment. I see no further blockers here. If you could make that comment change, we can call this package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:56:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199682] Review Request: postgresql-dbi-link - Partial implementation of the SQL/MED portion of the SQL:2003 specification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212356.l1LNuQ4m011775@bugzilla.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: postgresql-dbi-link - Partial implementation of the SQL/MED portion of the SQL:2003 specification https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199682 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-21 18:56 EST ------- ok, that version from comment #28 looks good to me, so I would APPROVE it (again). Mamoru: Could you look over the package in comment #28 and confirm that I haven't missed anything? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 21 23:58:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:58:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702212358.l1LNwgT2011905@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-21 18:58 EST ------- For generating the tarball, see the tag-archive/create-archive sections in the Makefile. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 00:18:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:18:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220018.l1M0IHMu012746@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-21 19:18 EST ------- Updated: Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/magic.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/RPMS/magic-7.4.33-6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 00:19:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:19:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228555] Review Request: Fedora Directory Server In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220019.l1M0JcFh012783@bugzilla.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: Fedora Directory Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228555 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-21 19:19 EST ------- as this caused a problem using the old fedora-ds package provided by Directory Server Team and it only provides the base ldap server functionality. none of the admin tools It has been renamed in fedora cvs to fedora-ds-base with the intention when there is a full replacement in fedora we can have a fedora-ds metapackage that provides the full user experience -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 00:43:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:43:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225804] Merge Review: glib2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220043.l1M0hS8u013814@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: glib2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225804 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com 2007-02-21 19:43 EST ------- Is anything going to happen here ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 01:43:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:43:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223490] Review Request: alex - The lexer generator for Haskell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220143.l1M1hIRQ015602@bugzilla.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: alex - The lexer generator for Haskell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223490 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-21 20:43 EST ------- Basically this package also looks ok. I might suggest some minor cleanup of the .spec along the lines of happy.spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 02:01:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:01:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226190] Merge Review: netatalk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220201.l1M21gLJ016058@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: netatalk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226190 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-21 21:01 EST ------- I have to admit to being a bit apprehensive about reviewing this package because I know how ancient it is, but it's really not too bad. Let's see what rpmlint has to say: W: netatalk prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig, /sbin/service PreReq doesn't work as intended in RPM; use Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/chkconfig Requires(preun): /sbin/service Requires(postun): /sbin/service instead. W: netatalk macro-in-%changelog config W: netatalk macro-in-%changelog defattr W: netatalk macro-in-%changelog exclusiveos '%' symbols in %changelog need to be escaped by doubling them. Otherwise they can actually be expanded under some circumstances. W: netatalk mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 9) rpmlint is needlessly picky, although line 9 is a bit odd, containing "space tab space". W: netatalk conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/atalk This is OK; there's ongoing discussion about the proper thing to do here but no concensus. W: netatalk devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/netatalk-config Any reason why this isn't in the -devel package? E: netatalk wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/netatalk-2.0.3/ICDumpSuffixMap "perl" This file has nonstandard line endings. It should be either converted or just deleted. If you choose to keep it, you might as well patch the #! line to include a path. E: netatalk executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/atalk Generally init.d files are executable, so this is OK E: netatalk setuid-binary /usr/bin/afppasswd root 04755 E: netatalk non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/afppasswd 04755 This is just the way it has to be, as I understand things. W: netatalk incoherent-init-script-name atalk rpmlint wants to see the init script named after the package, but after all this time I can't imagine changing this. W: netatalk-devel no-documentation Not a problem. Other issues found during review: You can use %{_initrddir} instead of defining "initdir" if you like. BuildRoot should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Any reason for not allowing parallel make? It seems to work fine on my 8-way machine. There are a couple of odd dependencies. Given that even the very old RH9 shipped with pam 0.75, it's certainly safe to drop the versioned requirement on pam, although it's not really problematic to keep it. You don't need the explicit openssl or cracklib dependencies as RPM picks up the libcrypto and libcrack dependencies by itself. Also, you have a runtime dependency on tcp_wrappers, but no build-time dependency on it, so the resulting package is built without tcp_wrappers support. I think you should add a BR: on tcp_wrappers-devel and remove the manual runtime tcp_wrappers dependency; RPM will pick up the libwrap dependency which will pull in tcp_wrappers-libs automatically. Also, I'm not sure why there's an explicit requirement for /etc/pam.d/system-auth. This file has been part of pam for as long as I can recall, and having an explicit file dependency causes extra pain for end users in dependency resolution because yum has to pull in filelists.xml. (See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FileDeps for more info.) Several libraries are installed into %{_libdir}, but there are no scriptlets which call ldconfig. You should add /sbin/ldconfig calls to %post and %postun and the necessary dependencies. There are several static libraries and .la files in the -devel package. Generally static libraries aren't shipped in Fedora without a really good reason, and if they are shipped, they need to be in a -static subpackage. Libtool .la files shouldn't be shipped at all unless the package breaks without them. Review: * source files match upstream: 25e004732f471de0dd9a21ab129ee799da018fce3b313d4ab5e6f52e6e9e3998 netatalk-2.0.3.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. X build root is not correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (you shouldn't need to specify pam, as pam-devel should pull it in, and you don't need to specify libtool explicitly.) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has valid complaints. ? final provides and requires are sane: netatalk-2.0.3-9.fc7.x86_64.rpm config(netatalk) = 4:2.0.3-9.fc7 uams_dhx_pam.so()(64bit) uams_dhx_passwd.so()(64bit) uams_gss.so()(64bit) uams_guest.so()(64bit) uams_pam.so()(64bit) uams_passwd.so()(64bit) uams_randnum.so()(64bit) netatalk = 4:2.0.3-9.fc7 = /bin/sh ? /etc/pam.d/system-auth /sbin/chkconfig /sbin/service /usr/bin/perl config(netatalk) = 4:2.0.3-9.fc7 cracklib libcom_err.so.2()(64bit) libcrack.so.2()(64bit) libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libdb-4.5.so()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2()(64bit) libgssapi_krb5.so.2(gssapi_krb5_2_MIT)(64bit) libk5crypto.so.3()(64bit) libkrb5.so.3()(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) ? openssl ? pam >= 0.56 perl >= 1:5 perl(Getopt::Std) perl(IO::Socket) perl(Socket) perl(strict) perl(vars) ? tcp_wrappers uams_dhx_pam.so()(64bit) uams_pam.so()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. X shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, but ldconfig is not called. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present (but there should be) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. Actually the package is about half documentation, but the whole thing isn't very large. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. X static libraries. X libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 02:31:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:31:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220231.l1M2VqYc017003@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 peter at thecodergeek.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(peter at thecodergeek| |.com) | ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-21 21:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #23) > ping? Pong. :] I've posted updated files on my webspace which take care of the issues you mention. * Wed Feb 21 2007 Peter Gordon - 0.4.1-5 - Make notify-python dependency conditional (FC6+ only) - Strip the unneeded shebang lines from the plugin scripts, since they are not meant to be directly executed. Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SPECs/deluge.spec SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/SRPMs/deluge-0.4.1-5.src.rpm Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 03:25:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:25:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227873] Review Request: sear-media - media files for the sear game client In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220325.l1M3PiJR018791@bugzilla.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: sear-media - media files for the sear game client Alias: sear-media https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227873 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-21 22:25 EST ------- Imported and built for rawhide. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 03:27:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:27:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229533] Review Request: perl-Template-GD - GD plugin(s) for the Template Toolkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220327.l1M3R4DJ018889@bugzilla.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-Template-GD - GD plugin(s) for the Template Toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229533 jpo at di.uminho.pt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jpo at di.uminho.pt OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-21 22:27 EST ------- Needswork --------- * several missing requirements Current requirements $ rpm -qpR perl-Template-GD-2.66-1.noarch.rpm perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(GD) perl(base) perl(strict) perl(warnings) ... Missing requirments: The same base modules that are listed as BR. rpmbuild fails to detect "use base " requirements. $ grep -r -h "\buse" * | sort | uniq ... use base qw( GD::Graph::area Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Graph::bars3d Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Graph::bars Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Graph::lines3d Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Graph::linespoints Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Graph::lines Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Graph::mixed Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Graph::pie3d Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Graph::pie Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Graph::points Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Text::Align Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Text Template::Plugin ); use base qw( GD::Text::Wrap Template::Plugin ); use base 'Template::Plugin'; ... * find: change order of the options -find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type d -depth ... +find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d ... Avoids the warning: "find: warning: you have specified the -depth option after a non-option argument -type, but options are not positional (-depth affects tests specified before it as well as those specified after it). Please specify options before other arguments." Other notes/sugestions ---------------------- * drop the perl BR * add a slash to the end Template directory: it's easier to detect that we are planning owning the directory and everything inside it. -%{perl_vendorlib}/Template +%{perl_vendorlib}/Template/ jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 03:44:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:44:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220344.l1M3iPAD019770@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-21 22:44 EST ------- Just one comment: (In reply to comment #1) > > * %prep > > - the use of "cp -f x2vnc.man x2vnc.man.orig" is useless. You don't need to > create an save file. > - Also the use of "mv -f new_man x2vnc.man" is useless. > - Just use : > iconv -f iso-8859-5 -t utf-8 x2vnc.man > x2vnc.man > instead of > iconv -f iso-8859-5 -t utf-8 x2vnc.man > new_man This is forbidden. Direct redirect use of iconv destroys the original file. Actually in -2 binary man file is broken. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 05:03:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:03:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220503.l1M53LDI024781@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 00:03 EST ------- ping? any updates? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 05:07:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221769] Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220507.l1M57EOG024856@bugzilla.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: libcgi - CGI easy as C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221769 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 00:07 EST ------- any updates on above issue? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 05:09:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221947] Review Request: gwenhywfar - utility library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220509.l1M59EpQ024881@bugzilla.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: gwenhywfar - utility library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221947 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 00:09 EST ------- Ping any problem for importing this package to CVS? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 05:09:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:09:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228208] Review Request: gtranslator - Gettext po file editor for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220509.l1M59xum024899@bugzilla.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: gtranslator - Gettext po file editor for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228208 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 00:09 EST ------- I saw this package is already built in rawhide. Any reason for not CLOSING this review request? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 05:17:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:17:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220517.l1M5HhKh025031@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 00:17 EST ------- checked again in mock build. Looks ok to me. rpmlint however reports single warning which already got explanation from reporter. W: magic hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/magic/sys/.magicrc APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 05:43:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:43:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220543.l1M5htLx025552@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-22 00:43 EST ------- Sorry real life caught up with me... but i'm back on my meds now. http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/usbsink/usbsink.spec http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/usbsink/usbsink-0.3.0-4.fc6.src.rpm has the gtk-update-icon-cache scriptlets in post and postun. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 05:46:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:46:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220546.l1M5kL3K025608@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 00:46 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM + source files match upstream. e9a94f6a054c1332483024ee035d3a79 speedcrunch-0.7-beta2.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + translations are available but not handled with %find_lang. + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. - Desktop file installed correctly but not able to view it under Applications Menu. + GUI app. SHOULD: desktop file should be viewable under applications menu. Update Desktop file and submit new package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 05:49:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:49:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220549.l1M5nak1025683@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 00:49 EST ------- unable to download SRPM -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 05:56:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:56:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220556.l1M5ublb025796@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 05:57:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:57:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220557.l1M5vWkr025864@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-22 00:57 EST ------- Sorry, I pushed the local mock builds from the development tree to the webspace this time. http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/usbsink/FE-development/usbsink.spec http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/usbsink/FE-development/usbsink-0.3.0-4.fc7.src.rpm You'll find the build.log from the mock session in that directory as well. If you need a local fc6 binary builds let me know. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 06:16:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:16:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220616.l1M6Gxx1026261@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 01:16 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM - rpmlint is NOT for RPM. (But following rpmlint warning can be ignored W: qdbm-java devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libjqdbm.so) + source files match upstream. 73f9d2fa4627a321062c4a4de7264946 qdbm-1.8.74.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + .pc files present. + -devel,-cgi,-java,-perl, qdbm++, qdbm++-devel, ruby-qdbm subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 06:32:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:32:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220632.l1M6Whc9026661@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jspaleta at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-22 01:32 EST ------- PING! Where do the packaging issues stand at this point? I ran across hugin recently and I'd very much like if we can get hugin into the package collection. It's been 4 months since the last comment, so I'd appreciate a recap as to what the outstanding blocker issues are, and I'd like to know if the original submitter is still willing to maintain the package. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 07:01:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:01:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220701.l1M71Un0027289@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 02:01 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM + source files match upstream. c2044fdfa11e1725d15a7efe160a839e usbsink-0.3.0.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + Used Scrollkeeper-update scriptlet. + file permissions are appropriate. + Desktop file installed correctly. + GUI app. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 07:07:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225750] Merge Review: file In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220707.l1M77ESH027451@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225750 mbacovsk at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 07:21:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:21:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226377] Merge Review: rpm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220721.l1M7L2ch027753@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226377 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pnasrat at redhat.com CC| |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-22 02:20 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: e24ce468082479fe850c9d6563f56db5 rpm-4.4.2.tar.gz e24ce468082479fe850c9d6563f56db5 rpm-4.4.2.tar.gz.1 See below - BuildRequires correct See below - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. See below - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 147 outstanding open bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. 1. There are a number of different liceses here: main part - GPL and some LGPL db - BSDish zlib - weird zlib license. I assume they can all handle being released GPL as a whole? Can you include a copy of the GPL COPYING file? 2. Is there any way that find_lang could be used? I guess it would need to be called from the local ./scripts/find-lang.sh ? 3. Please use the one true buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 4. Are all the "%ifos linux" conditionals needed? Is this spec used on non linux systems very often? 5. Per http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts (which is only a draft it's true), could you change the Conflicts: patch < 2.5 to Requires: patch > 2.5 or since this has been true since fc1, can we just remove that? Also in the -build subpackage there's a 'Requires: patch >= 2.5' 6. BuildRequires: sed isn't needed, thats in the base build exceptions. 7. What does the "#XXX: lua fix this" comment mean? 8. Can this conditional be removed now: # XXX Red Hat 5.2 has not bzip2 or python %if %{with_bzip2} 9. In both build and install there is: # XXX rpm needs functioning nptl for configure tests unset LD_ASSUME_KERNEL || : Perhaps instead it could bomb out of the build if someone is stupid enough to have that set these days? Right now if they do have it set and they build rpm, it will magically be unset after the build. 10. Since there's a cron.daily file, shouldn't there also be Requires: crontab 11. Likewise for logrotate, should there be a 'Requires: logrotate' 12. This block in install doesn't seem to be doing anything: %if %{with_apidocs} gzip -9n apidocs/man/man*/* || : %endif from build.log: + gzip -9n 'apidocs/man/man*/*' gzip: apidocs/man/man*/*: No such file or directory The directory in the devel subpackage is empty. 13. The python subpackage should not need to call ldconfig on post/postun. This block can be removed: %if %{with_python_subpackage} %post python -p /sbin/ldconfig %postun python -p /sbin/ldconfig %endif 14. rpmlint has a few things to say: First, there are 240 lines of 'non-standard-uid' or 'non-standard-gid' These can all be ignored in this case. a) W: popt no-url-tag W: rpm no-url-tag W: rpm-build no-url-tag W: rpm-libs no-url-tag W: rpm-python no-url-tag W: rpm-devel no-url-tag Suggest: add a "URL: http://www.rpm.org" ? b) W: popt summary-ended-with-dot A C library for parsing command line parameters. W: rpm summary-ended-with-dot The RPM package management system. W: rpm summary-ended-with-dot The RPM package management system. W: rpm-build summary-ended-with-dot Scripts and executable programs used to build packages. W: rpm-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development files for manipulating RPM packages. W: rpm-libs summary-ended-with-dot Libraries for manipulating RPM packages. W: rpm-python summary-ended-with-dot Python bindings for apps which will manipulate RPM packages. Suggest: remove . at end of summary. c) W: popt devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpopt.a W: popt devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/popt.h W: popt devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libpopt.so There's a comment that says: # XXX These may end up in popt-devel but it hardly seems worth the effort. %{__libdir}/libpopt.a %{__libdir}/libpopt.so %{__includedir}/popt.h Is it still not worth the effort? Or perhaps now is a good time? Or perhaps they can just be removed if nothing is using them? d) W: rpm prereq-use fileutils shadow-utils fileutils was replaced a while back with coreutils, which is in the min build root exceptions. For shadow-utils, you could do: Requires(pre): shadow-utils Requires(postun): shadow-utils e) W: rpm macro-in-%changelog ghost Suggest: Change "%ghost" in the changelog to "%%ghost" f) W: rpm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 267, tab: line 1) Suggest: pick tabs or spaces. g) W: rpm patch-not-applied Patch9: rpm-4.4.2-contextverify.patch W: rpm patch-not-applied Patch12: rpm-4.4.2-exclude.patch Suggest: should those patches just be removed? h) E: rpm obsolete-not-provided rpm-perl Suggest: Do we need to have this obsolete around anymore? i) W: rpm file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/sk/man8/rpm.8.gz W: rpm file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/pl/man8/rpm.8.gz W: rpm file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/pl/man8/rpmbuild.8.gz W: rpm file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/pl/man8/rpmdeps.8.gz W: rpm file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/pl/man8/rpmgraph.8.gz W: rpm file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/pl/man1/gendiff.1.gz W: rpm file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/pl/man8/rpmcache.8.gz W: rpm file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/pl/man8/rpm2cpio.8.gz Suggest: Perhaps run iconv on those? j) E: rpm script-without-shebang /usr/lib/rpm/rpm.xinetd Suggest: should this be shipped at all? or installed in /etc/xinetd.d/ ? Or at the very least it should be mode 644. k) E: rpm script-without-shebang /usr/lib/rpm/rpm.log Suggest: This is a duplicate of /etc/logrotate.d/rpm, and can be removed? l) E: rpm executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/rpm Suggest: Don't mark that a config file. m) E: rpm-build script-without-shebang /usr/lib/rpm/magic E: rpm-build script-without-shebang /usr/lib/rpm/magic.mime E: rpm-build script-without-shebang /usr/lib/rpm/config.site Suggest: all 3 of those should be mode 644? n) W: rpm-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/rpm-4.4.2/rpmqv.c Suggest: source file should be 644? The following can also be ignored. Since rpm needs rpmmacros to use %configure or the like it can't do that when building itself. Or they otherwise appear to be false positives to me. E: rpm configure-without-libdir-spec E: rpm configure-without-libdir-spec E: rpm hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/rpmrc E: rpm standard-dir-owned-by-package /var/lib/rpm W: rpm-libs no-documentation W: rpm-python no-documentation W: rpm dangerous-command-in-%pre rpm W: rpm dangerous-command-in-%post chown W: rpm dangerous-command-in-%postun userdel E: rpm-build statically-linked-binary /usr/lib/rpm/debugedit E: rpm-python script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/rpm/__init__.py 15. Are all the static libs in -devel needed? If so perhaps a -static subpackage? 16. The 'Requires: python >= %{with_python_version}' isn't needed. rpm adds a 'python(abi) = 2.5' to requires without it. 17. There are currently 147 outstanding open bugs against rpm. You might consider going and doing some triage on them. If you like I would be willing to assist in doing so. Some of them do seem related to packaging concerns. Since there is a upstream at rpm.org, many could possibly be pushed up there (especially patches/enhancement requests). Perhaps we could even round up a QA team session and get them addressed. 18. Is there any chance of trying the sqlite backend? I know it's supposed to be slower than DB, but if it is more reliable it will be well worth it in my opinion. I would also be willing to assist in generating a patch to the spec addressing many of the above if you would like me to. Once you have addressed these items (either by making the suggested changes, or by explaining why they don't make sense), please reassign this review back to me, and change the 'fedora-review' flag back to ? for me to take action. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 07:36:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:36:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225774] Merge Review: ftp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220736.l1M7aB5M028224@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ftp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225774 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 07:43:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:43:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220890] Review Request: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220743.l1M7hNOe028549@bugzilla.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: libcdaudio - Control operation of a CD-ROM when playing audio CDs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220890 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-22 02:43 EST ------- Please take this discussion to the fedora-packaging mailing list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 08:09:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:09:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220809.l1M89Tgi029392@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-22 03:09 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: KoboDeluxe Short Description: 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter Owners: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Branches: FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 08:16:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:16:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220816.l1M8GE3P029604@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-22 03:16 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: magic Short Description: A very capable VLSI layout tool Owners: cgoorah at yyahoo.com.au Branches: FC-6 InitialCC: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 08:36:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:36:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220836.l1M8a6xi030432@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-22 03:36 EST ------- Okay. One issue: http://deluge.mynimalistic.net/downloads/deluge-0.4.1.tar.gz does not work for me. http://deluge-torrent.org/downloads/deluge-0.4.1.tar.gz works. One comment: It seems that 0.5 beta 1 is out. However it is beta version and as this package can be used for FC6/5, in which branch stable release should usually used, so I will accept 0.4.1 version. ---------------------------------------------------------- This package (deluge) is APPROVED by me. ---------------------------------------------------------- Now the process of importing new packages changed, so please recheck the process from step 8 of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 09:38:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:38:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228208] Review Request: gtranslator - Gettext po file editor for GNOME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220938.l1M9c6io002712@bugzilla.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: gtranslator - Gettext po file editor for GNOME https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228208 foolish at guezz.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From foolish at guezz.net 2007-02-22 04:38 EST ------- Nope -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 09:51:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:51:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228970] Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220951.l1M9p6E3003311@bugzilla.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: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228970 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 09:59:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:59:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228970] Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702220959.l1M9xc39003768@bugzilla.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: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228970 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 04:59 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM + source files match upstream. eb96b4dde3ab12ba1f31a4230a829ff3 ELPH-1.0.1.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:02:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:02:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228971] Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221002.l1MA2hd4003978@bugzilla.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: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228971 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 05:02 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM + source files match upstream. 3e933b79c7d019eb48fa87b9fda1e1ee glimmer302.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:05:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:05:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221005.l1MA5QE3004127@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From david at lovesunix.net 2007-02-22 05:05 EST ------- I talked at lenght with the developer on the hang, he can't reproduce it on his Ubuntu machine with the 5.0 codebase - so it seems that bug might go away once 5.0 is released and packaged. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:05:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:05:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221005.l1MA5ou2004165@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-22 05:05 EST ------- BuildRequires: yes, coreutils necessarily poses a bootstrapping problem. There isn't really anything that can be done about that. install-info: okay, done sed: alright, I've done this too. Tagged and built as 6.7-9.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:10:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:10:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221256] Review Request: etswitch - A *nix 'minimizer' for a few games In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221010.l1MAAr4d004619@bugzilla.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: etswitch - A *nix 'minimizer' for a few games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221256 ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-22 05:10 EST ------- This program does not work for me; I've tried using the hard-coded escape keys ("super_L" and "F10") according to the man page, and I've tried setting up different escape keys using "etswitch -c", but with no luck. This was tested using warzone2100 and supertux. I am running KDE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:11:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:11:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221011.l1MABtUR004691@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-22 05:11 EST ------- (In reply to comment #26) > I talked at lenght with the developer on the hang, he can't reproduce it on his > Ubuntu machine with the 5.0 codebase - so it seems that bug might go away once > 5.0 is released and packaged. It is due to what version of gail the developer uses... 0.4.1 hangs up with gail-1.17.0, however with gail 1.17.0 with a patch from Kazehakase developer applied deluge does not hang up. I have not checked 5.0beta version yet, if I have some time I will want to try it. Anyway this package is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:15:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:15:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221256] Review Request: etswitch - A *nix 'minimizer' for a few games In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221015.l1MAFYf6004902@bugzilla.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: etswitch - A *nix 'minimizer' for a few games https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221256 ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-22 05:15 EST ------- Just another quick note: your desktop-file-install command has the following entry: --add-category X-Fedora This category is deprecated and should be removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:24:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:24:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221024.l1MAOcBq005512@bugzilla.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-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229257 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 05:24 EST ------- Got rpmlint on SRPM as W: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto strange-permission filter-requires.sh 0775 A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. As you have already done chmod +x %{SOURCE99} in %prep section, you can change rights on file filter-requires.sh to 0644. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:28:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:28:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 216517] Review Request: gnome-valgrind-session - Run an entire GNOME session under valgrind In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221028.l1MASmsU005746@bugzilla.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: gnome-valgrind-session - Run an entire GNOME session under valgrind https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216517 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 05:28 EST ------- Any updates here or is this review DEAD? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:41:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:41:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225257] Merge Review: aspell-af In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221041.l1MAfHlc006844@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-af https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225257 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jspaleta at gmail.com |varekova at redhat.com CC| |mmaslano at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-22 05:41 EST ------- Source: W: aspell-af summary-ended-with-dot Afrikaans dictionaries for Aspell. W: aspell-af rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT W: aspell-af rpm-buildroot-usage %build echo "DEST_DIR = $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" >> Makefile W: aspell-af rpm-buildroot-usage %build echo "dictdir = ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/aspell-0.60" >> Makefile W: aspell-af rpm-buildroot-usage %build echo "datadir = ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/aspell-0.60" >> Makefile E: aspell-af no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install rm -rf from prep to clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build Arch: W: aspell-af summary-ended-with-dot Afrikaans dictionaries for Aspell. E: aspell-af no-binary -> should be noarch E: aspell-af only-non-binary-in-usr-lib -> will be fix by previous W: aspell-af no-documentation -> not a problem Release number should be whole number. Wrong buildroot, should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) md5sum: bde617a195e70364f96eea71cf71a333 == bde617a195e70364f96eea71cf71a333 Permission should be: %defattr(-,root,root,-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:49:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:49:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221049.l1MAn1Uu007669@bugzilla.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: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 ------- Additional Comments From maxime.carron at fedoraproject.org 2007-02-22 05:49 EST ------- There is a colored version of my specfile for online reading at http://carron.maxime.free.fr/fedora/rpms/pypar2.spec.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 10:57:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:57:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221769] Review Request: libcgi - CGI easy as C In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221057.l1MAvRs7008507@bugzilla.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: libcgi - CGI easy as C https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221769 ------- Additional Comments From jpo at di.uminho.pt 2007-02-22 05:57 EST ------- Sorry! I forgot to update this ticket. New specfile that creates a -static subpackage: ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/libcgi.spec ftp://perl.di.uminho.pt/pub/fedora/libcgi-1.0-2.src.rpm jpo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 11:12:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:12:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221112.l1MBCnZc009214@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-22 06:12 EST ------- all done except the first suggestion in -6. I'll keep the filenames. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 11:13:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:13:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221113.l1MBDUmw009264@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 ------- Additional Comments From bruno at postle.net 2007-02-22 06:13 EST ------- I'd very much like to get the hugin/enblend pair into fedora, not least because I have a hundred or so people using my third party repo and I need to get them moved over. This review has stalled because the hugin sources include a modified version of vigra rather than using the vigra already in extras. Upstream doesn't see changing this as a priority, so we are stuck with a package that lots of people want to use in fedora which can't get in. Note that the related enblend tool also uses includes a modified vigra, so this will have the same issues if and when I submit that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 11:34:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:34:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221134.l1MBYbvC009797@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-22 06:34 EST ------- and what about the use of find ./man -name "*.1" -exec iconv -f iso8859-2 -t utf8 {} -o {}utf \; -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 11:35:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:35:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225786] Merge Review: gd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221135.l1MBZ65n009822@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225786 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-22 06:35 EST ------- Source: W: gd mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 12) Devel & progs: W: gd-devel no-documentation License: BSD-style -> only BSD Source0: http://www.libgd.org/Releases/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 Wrong, correct is: http://www.libgd.org/releases/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 md5sum ok -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 11:46:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:46:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225948] Merge Review: joe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221146.l1MBkIP1010391@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: joe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225948 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-22 06:46 EST ------- Buildroot is here twice, remove the old one. Replace old macro %makeinstall. _sysconfdir is macro by default /shared/config and you have /etc. Should be replaced by different one. Can't built from CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 11:53:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:53:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221153.l1MBrOJU010779@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs.unipr.it 2007-02-22 06:53 EST ------- Thanks to a freshly installed FC6 system I spotted several dependency problems and I believe I have fixed them all. The revised source RPM is http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-3.src.rpm and this comes from http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl.spec http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/ppl-0.9.tar.gz http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-docfiles.patch The issue of the *-static packages is still pending. I am also considering the possibility of having *-doc packages, but I prefer to wait for your advice concerning the number of subpackages that is tolerable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 12:11:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:11:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226118] Merge Review: mailx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221211.l1MCBJ6k011765@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mailx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226118 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-22 07:11 EST ------- Source: W: mailx summary-ended-with-dot The /bin/mail program for sending e-mail messages. W: mailx no-url-tag E: mailx hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib Check if hardcoded-library-path is really necessary for backward compatibility. URL: Missing Source: false, not sure what's upstream. Should it be? ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/m/mailx/ Buildroot: replace with new Release: too long format Uselles to define macro datadir. Defatter should have 4 parametres. Arch: W: mailx summary-ended-with-dot The /bin/mail program for sending e-mail messages. W: mailx no-url-tag E: mailx only-non-binary-in-usr-lib -> should be in /usr/share Debug: W: mailx-debuginfo no-url-tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 12:17:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:17:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225257] Merge Review: aspell-af In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221217.l1MCHBfc012190@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-af https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225257 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-22 07:17 EST ------- Now ok, rpmlint still say: E: aspell-af no-binary E: aspell-af only-non-binary-in-usr-lib It's specific behaviour for dictionary -> ok. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 12:21:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:21:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225257] Merge Review: aspell-af In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221221.l1MCLQwC012362@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: aspell-af https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225257 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-22 07:21 EST ------- fixed version aspell-af-0.50-5.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 12:28:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:28:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221228.l1MCStkQ012849@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-22 07:28 EST ------- "Update Desktop file" - Sorry, I don't know what to update, the desktop file is exactly made like the example in 'Guidelines#desktop' -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 12:57:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:57:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225786] Merge Review: gd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221257.l1MCvjFT015207@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225786 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-22 07:57 EST ------- Fixed in gd-2.0.34-2.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 13:05:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:05:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226218] Merge Review: openssh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221305.l1MD5cFX015585@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: openssh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226218 ------- Additional Comments From tmraz at redhat.com 2007-02-22 08:05 EST ------- I've fixed the following in openssh-4.5p1-3.fc7: - Package has no duplicate files in %files. -- /etc/ssh is provided by openssh-server and openssh. (removed from openssh-server) - Package has incorrect build root. (replaced with the standard one) The gnome-ssh-askpass is really simple thing which works out of the box so I don't think doc is necessary for it. The perms on openssh-nukeacss.sh in srpm would have to be fixed manually in the CVS repository. The 'mixed use of spaces and tabs' is a nonsense as both are used in completely different places for different purposes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 13:22:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:22:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228970] Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221322.l1MDMXjD016361@bugzilla.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: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228970 Christian.Iseli at licr.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From Christian.Iseli at licr.org 2007-02-22 08:22 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: elph Short Description: Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences Owners: Christian.Iseli at licr.org Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 13:24:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:24:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228971] Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221324.l1MDOTQH016527@bugzilla.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: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228971 Christian.Iseli at licr.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From Christian.Iseli at licr.org 2007-02-22 08:24 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: glimmer Short Description: System for finding genes in microbial DNA Owners: Christian.Iseli at licr.org Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 13:37:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:37:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228970] Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221337.l1MDbK8p017142@bugzilla.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: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228970 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-22 08:37 EST ------- Branched. For the reviewer please set the fedora-review flag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 13:37:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:37:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221337.l1MDbkc3017181@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 08:37 EST ------- What Categories=... are listed in it's .desktop file? For example, kcalc (in kdeutils) includes: Categories=Qt;KDE;Utility;X-KDE-Utilities-Desktop; -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 13:41:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:41:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228971] Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221341.l1MDf7oY017355@bugzilla.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: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228971 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-22 08:40 EST ------- branched Reviewer please set the fedora-review flag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 13:52:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:52:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226133] Merge Review: mc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221352.l1MDqeOH018161@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226133 dmitry at butskoy.name changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dmitry at butskoy.name ------- Additional Comments From dmitry at butskoy.name 2007-02-22 08:52 EST ------- There are a couple of patches which alter the default upstream source. AFAIK the Fedora's policy against "new feature" patches is "send it upstream". Certainly, the patches for compatibility (i.e. big utf8 patch, which allows MC to be looked under UTF-8 locale the same way as upstream's MC is looked) or for scalability (new locales, new optional modules etc.) are allowed. But there are at least "mc-showfree" and "mc-utf8-look-and-feel" patches (and maybe even more) which do not match that criteria. Such kind of patches should first be sent upstream. It is exactly the upstream's decision whether apply them or not. Else you should fork the project with another name etc... Well, sorry for the words above, actually I'm not so formal. Since these two patches already present for a while, let's it be. But to be correct, some things are needed: - Config option to switch new "look-and-feel" on/off must be added - This option and already existing "showfree" option should not be enabled by default. In other words, the fresh installed Fedora's MC should be looked closely to vanilla upstream version. MC is one of "every day and every hour" applications for me. When the habitual "look and feel" suddenly changes, and there is no way to switch off, it is painful enough for users... P.S. The names of patches should normaly have form "mc-version-name.patch", where "version" points the first upstream version when the patch was appeared. If the upstream is actually cvs, then use cvs date for it. P.P.S. I hope it is not needed to re-open this bugzilla ticket? ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 14:12:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:12:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221412.l1MECI2x020221@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-22 09:12 EST ------- most fixes applied, the spec file looks a lot saner now. Thanks ! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 14:23:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:23:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] New: Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system 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=229647 Summary: Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/hyperestraier.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/hyperestraier-1.4.9-1.fc7.src.rpm Mockbuild log on FC-devel i386: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/LOGS/MOCK-hyperestraier.log Description: Hyper Estraier is a full-text search system. You can search lots of documents for some documents including specified words. If you run a web site, it is useful as your own search engine for pages in your site. Also, it is useful as search utilities of mail boxes and file servers. rpmlint on binary rpms: ------------------------------------------- W: hyperestraier-java devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libjestraier.so ------------------------------------------- Well, I don't know well about java package, however I think that there is no need to create another -java-devel package for this .so file. This package depends on qdbm (bug 229478) Co-maintainers are welcome!! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 14:25:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:25:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221425.l1MEPecH021721@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |229647 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-22 09:25 EST ------- I submitted hyperestraier (bug 229647) which depends on this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 14:25:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:25:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221425.l1MEPpFw021755@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |229478 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 14:30:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:30:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221430.l1MEUBWG022318@bugzilla.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: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-22 09:30 EST ------- I don't know well about this, however, according to README, this program can use hyperestraier, of which the review request I submitted (bug 229647). hyperestraier depends on qdbm (bug 229478) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 14:42:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:42:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226501] Merge Review: traceroute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221442.l1MEgMkb023780@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: traceroute https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226501 dmitry at butskoy.name changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dmitry at butskoy.name ------- Additional Comments From dmitry at butskoy.name 2007-02-22 09:42 EST ------- Hmmm, nothing prevents me to review this one... ;) All seems OK, except IMHO the dist tag (.fc7) should not be included into changelog section. Another packages seem to not include it... (or maybe I'm wrong?) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 14:43:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:43:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] New: Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player 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=229651 Summary: Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tscherf at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/rpms/fedora/Democracy.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/rpms/fedora/Democracy-0.9.5-1.src.rpm Description: Democracy player is a free application that turns your computer into an internet TV video player. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 14:45:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:45:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226501] Merge Review: traceroute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221445.l1MEjgdd024156@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: traceroute https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226501 dmitry at butskoy.name changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 14:48:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:48:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221448.l1MEmJ4H024381@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 09:48 EST ------- Awesome! A couple quick comments: 1. No need to %ghost .pyo files anymore, as a matter of fact, it is discouraged: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python 2. Use %find_lang instead of manually including locale bits: %{_datadir}/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/democracyplayer.mo 3. You include %post update-desktop-database %{_datadir}/applications but not for %postun ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 14:59:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:59:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221459.l1MExsBv025605@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-22 09:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment > A couple quick comments: > 1. No need to %ghost .pyo files anymore, as a matter of fact, it is > discouraged: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python moreover, I think the python-abi require line could go away. > 3. You include > %post > update-desktop-database %{_datadir}/applications > but not for %postun ? and those lines should probably end with "&> /dev/null ||:" as specified in: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets Moreover, do they fixed the x86_64 issues present in earlier versions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 15:05:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:05:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221505.l1MF5UmW026317@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-22 10:05 EST ------- Well, actually files needed to be fixed are only ./x2vnc.man (in build directory), aren't they? So simply in %prep stage: --------------------------------------------- for f in README x2vnc.man ; do iconv -f ISO08859-2 -t UTF-8 $f > $f.tmp && \ mv $f.tmp $f || rm -f $f.tmp done --------------------------------------------- will be simpler (this is my usual way). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 15:05:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:05:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221505.l1MF5ZXf026364@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 10:05 EST ------- > Moreover, do they fixed the x86_64 issues present in earlier versions? "they" being who? democracy devs? "the x86_64 issues" being what exactly? didn't build? didn't run properly? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 15:11:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:11:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221511.l1MFBRIZ027050@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-22 10:11 EST ------- please, use %{_mandir}/man1/ instead of %{_datadir}/man/man1/ > # Include files and dirs below %{python_sitelib} (for noarch packages) Where ? the use of cd platform/gtk-x11 looks good. personnaly, i prefer to use pushd-command to enter in some directory and popd-command to exit this one (same thing for %build section). such as: ---- pushd gtk-x11 python setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT popd ---- i think it's better for a clean review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 15:25:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:25:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221525.l1MFPWrF028546@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From giallu at gmail.com 2007-02-22 10:25 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > > Moreover, do they fixed the x86_64 issues present in earlier versions? > > "they" being who? democracy devs? > "the x86_64 issues" being what exactly? didn't build? didn't run properly? sorry for the out-of-context comment. I was referring to this: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-November/msg00104.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 15:41:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:41:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] New: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. 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=229657 Summary: Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: cbalint at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/iverilog.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/iverilog-20070123-2.src.rpm Description: Icarus Verilog is a Verilog compiler that generates a variety of engineering formats, including simulation. It strives to be true to the IEEE-1364 standard. It is the only verilog compiler able to compile large projects like OpenRISC, or OpenSPARC T1 sources. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 15:46:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:46:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221546.l1MFkXWO030150@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-22 10:46 EST ------- Categories=Engineering; (The same as the Group in the spec file) Should I switch that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 15:53:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:53:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221553.l1MFrlQ8030605@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 10:53 EST ------- It should include a "Main" Category, see http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html All other Categories are optional, they're not guarranteed to be supported (ie, appear in menus). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 15:54:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:54:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228295] Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221554.l1MFsNFx030659@bugzilla.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: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228295 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-22 10:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > Well, for 0.8.7b-1: > > * gettext po file > - Can't the gettext po files under .po/ directory be used > for this program? > (One possibility is that with adding gettext as BuildRequires, > gettext may try to compile po files automatically, or you > have to use msgfmt manually anyway). > Well on my system with gettext installed ./configure says: "checking if po should be compiled... yes" And then make (install) doesn't do anything under the po dir :| So I've added a manual conversion and install of the .po files to the specfile > * Documentation > - What is the following files? > --------------------------------------------------- > ./src/NOATUN_AUTHORS > --------------------------------------------------- > A list of the authors of the noatun KDE media player, further investigations has learned me that src/soundengine.* contain portions of noatun code, so I'll add this file to %doc > * index.docbook > Usually KDE applications try to install index.docbook > (here ./doc/en/index.docbook) under /usr/share/doc/HTML/. > For this packages, can this be ignored? > This is just a template document from the kde app template, nothing usefull there. > * Other miscs > - What are the files under ./wafadmin directory? >From the README file: "2) You can compile kbilliards also with "waf" in three steps: ./waf.py configure ./waf.py build ./waf.py install" New version with the noatun authors file added and the .po files installed here: Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/kbilliards.spec SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/kbilliards-0.8.7b-2.fc7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 15:54:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:54:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221554.l1MFsJIB030651@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-22 10:54 EST ------- I asked on the fedora-packaging list[1] if the use of vendor when installing .desktop files had changed recently. It hasn't. The guidelines have been updated recently to clarify other things about installing .desktop files but vendor is still needed if upstream doesn't use it[2]. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00206.html [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 15:55:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:55:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221555.l1MFtTrl030742@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 Bug 222042 depends on bug 228134, which changed state. Bug 228134 Summary: it doesnt provide shared libs, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228134 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NOTABUG Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:02:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:02:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228295] Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221602.l1MG2iXG031379@bugzilla.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: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228295 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 11:02 EST ------- Looks good, you can probably omit the explicit: Requires: hicolor-icon-theme it's already Req'd by kdelibs (though it's not necessarily wrong to include it here either). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:07:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:07:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221607.l1MG7o3m031703@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-22 11:07 EST ------- I added Utility as a category, the new spec file is here: http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~p1woro/fedorarpms/speedcrunch.spec The new src.rpm is here: http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~p1woro/fedorarpms/speedcrunch-0.7-beta2.3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:11:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:11:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221611.l1MGBkNg031960@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-22 11:11 EST ------- kazehakase (currently I maintain) can use hyperestraier as a search engine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:14:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:14:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221614.l1MGEOu5032181@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 11:14 EST ------- For Release, use (something like): Release: 0.1.beta2%{?dist} Per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-e104844825856d7c45f2f0241586985c0495966b -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:16:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:16:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221947] Review Request: gwenhywfar - utility library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221616.l1MGGn4R032408@bugzilla.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: gwenhywfar - utility library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221947 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-22 11:16 EST ------- Just waiting for the round tuits. Will get to it this week-ish. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:21:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:21:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221621.l1MGL37A032667@bugzilla.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: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-22 11:20 EST ------- I happened to come across http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/cmake and applied the information there to this package; it builds fine and solves issues about compiler flags and the broken debuginfo package. Since I was in the spec and I know that it is urgent that this package be approved so that it can make it in for F7, I went ahead and fixed up all of the other issues as well. I'll attach a patch to the spec. With this patch applied, I would approve this 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 Thu Feb 22 16:27:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:27:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221627.l1MGRWP7000667@bugzilla.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: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-22 11:27 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148588) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148588&action=view) Patch to fix all specfile issues. -- 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 Feb 22 16:34:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:34:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221634.l1MGYpuS001204@bugzilla.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-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229257 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-22 11:34 EST ------- It's a superfluous warning; but rebuilt the srpm anyways. SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto-5.04-2.fc6.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:39:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:39:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221639.l1MGdoJm001656@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From tscherf at redhat.com 2007-02-22 11:39 EST ------- 1) removed %ghost from files section 2) used find_lang 3) created a postun 4) added "&> /dev/null ||:" to the Scriptlet 5) AFAIK the x86_64 bug should be fixed, can't test it myself, maybe someone else can verify this http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/rpms/fedora/Democracy.spec http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/rpms/fedora/Democracy-0.9.5-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:40:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:40:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221640.l1MGevUZ001765@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jpmahowald at gmail.com |pertusus at free.fr -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:43:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:43:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227099] Review Request: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221643.l1MGhuU5002142@bugzilla.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: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227099 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-22 11:43 EST ------- The duplicated lines have been removed. Here are the links to the updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/234/plexus-cdc.spec SOURCE RPM: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/235/plexus-cdc-1.0-0.1.a4.2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:54:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:54:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221654.l1MGsGoo002975@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rdieter at math.unl.edu ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 11:54 EST ------- Looking good, I can review this. 1. SHOULD simplify things and just include in %files: %{python_sitearch}/democracy/ instead of all the %dirs and * globbing. 2. Requires: firefox Other apps that build against firefox-devel need/use a *versioned* requires here, in effect Require'ing the same version of firefox they were built against. Is that the case here? (or maybe not worry about it (: ) 3. Requires: python-abi ... shouldn't be explictly required (when using python >= 2.4 anyway). 4. Requires: xine-lib gnome-python2-gtkmozembed libfame gnome-python2-gconf dbus-python Are *all* of these really explicitly required? In particular, xine-lib libfame should get auto'req'd by rpm (if not, it's ok to keep the Requires). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:54:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:54:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221654.l1MGsf9Q003027@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |163776 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 16:58:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:58:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221658.l1MGwBGx003296@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-22 11:58 EST ------- Thanks for your review and comments! I'll fix the Source URL and import this when I get home from classes tonight. Since I'm planning a Rawhide upgrade anyway, I'll play around with the 0.5 beta over the coming weekend, as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:00:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:00:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226131] Merge Review: man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221700.l1MH0K0F003573@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: man https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226131 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-22 12:00 EST ------- Source: E: man configure-without-libdir-spec W: man macro-in-%changelog config W: man macro-in-%changelog cache W: man macro-in-%changelog _mandir W: man macro-in-%changelog post Arch: W: man conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/cron.daily/makewhatis.cron W: man conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/cron.weekly/makewhatis.cron E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local/cat3 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/cat6 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/cat7 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/cat8 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/cat9 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6/cat9 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local/catn 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6/cat6 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local/cat8 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/catn 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local/cat9 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/cat1 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local/cat2 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local/cat6 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local/cat4 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local/cat5 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/cat3 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/cat4 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/cat5 0775 E: man executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.weekly/makewhatis.cron E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local/cat1 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local/cat7 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/local 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6/cat2 0775 E: man non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/makewhatis 0754 E: man script-without-shebang /usr/sbin/makewhatis E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/cat2 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6/cat1 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6/catn 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6/cat7 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6/cat5 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6/cat4 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6/cat3 0775 E: man non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/man/X11R6/cat8 0775 E: man executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/makewhatis.cron W: man dangerous-command-in-%preun rm W: man dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm %triggerpostun is amazing macro. Is it ok? Replace buidlroot. You don't need in BuilRequiers have: bzip2,coreutils,diffutils,gzip. Defattr should have 4 parametres. Shouldn't be perl replaced by something from bash? md5sum OK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:04:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:04:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221704.l1MH4UIa004032@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From tscherf at redhat.com 2007-02-22 12:04 EST ------- 1) simplified the files section 3) removed python-abi req 4) rpm should take care about this, true, removed the req about 2) not sure if we need a versioned firefox requirement. I tested this package on 2 difeerent machines with different firefox versions without problems, so it should work. could you verify this? http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/rpms/fedora/Democracy.spec http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/rpms/fedora/Democracy-0.9.5-3.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:06:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:06:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227099] Review Request: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221706.l1MH6cjq004262@bugzilla.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: plexus-cdc-1.0-0.a4.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227099 nsantos at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com |dbhole at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-22 12:06 EST ------- Approved -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:08:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:08:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223588] Review Request: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221708.l1MH8hq1004514@bugzilla.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: rudeconfig - C++ library for manipulating config files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223588 matt at rudeserver.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:08:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:08:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226130] Merge Review: man-pages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221708.l1MH8tPO004540@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: man-pages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226130 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-22 12:08 EST ------- Source: W: man-pages invalid-license distributable Arch: W: man-pages incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.43-5 2.43-7.fc7 W: man-pages invalid-license distributable E: man-pages standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man8 E: man-pages standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man6 E: man-pages standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man4 E: man-pages standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man5 E: man-pages standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man2 E: man-pages standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man3 E: man-pages standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 E: man-pages standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man9 E: man-pages standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man7 W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/environ.7.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man5/utmp.5.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man3/encrypt.3.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/iso_8859-7.7.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man3/updwtmp.3.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man4/st.4.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man2/close.2.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man2/getdomainname.2.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man2/umask.2.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/koi8-r.7.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/iso_8859-15.7.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man2/sysinfo.2.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/hier.7.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/glob.7.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man3/lockf.3.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man3/toupper.3.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/iso_8859-16.7.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man3/strtok.3.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/suffixes.7.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man2/getrlimit.2.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/iso_8859-9.7.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man3/fclose.3.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/iso_8859-2.7.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man3/fflush.3.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man3/rand.3.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man3/fcloseall.3.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man2/madvise.2.gz W: man-pages file-not-in-%lang /usr/share/man/en/man7/iso_8859-1.7.gz Replace buildroot with correct one. Maybe you could remove the commented lines in spec, if you don't need them in future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:11:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:11:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226501] Merge Review: traceroute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221711.l1MHBKLw004728@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: traceroute https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226501 ------- Additional Comments From mbacovsk at redhat.com 2007-02-22 12:11 EST ------- What a surprise you took this package for review :) Can be proud father objective enough? :) As for dist tags in changelog, is there any rule forbiding that? I find it usefull to keep track when rawhide was splited to new branch. I also have it in other packages which got fedora-review +. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:14:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:14:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226501] Merge Review: traceroute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221714.l1MHE3Nh004966@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: traceroute https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226501 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-22 12:14 EST ------- Personally I absolutely dislike dist tag in changelog, but it should be nothing which prevents from approving as I know of no guideline forbidding that. Dmitry, are you doing any formal review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:17:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:17:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221717.l1MHHvYt005236@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:19:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:19:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221719.l1MHJXvn005298@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 12:19 EST ------- mock build failed on Democracy-0.9.5-3.src.rpm ... Package config error: pkg-config --list-all outputted the following error: Package xfixes was not found in the pkg-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `xfixes.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable Package 'xfixes', required by 'Xcursor', not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.89920 (%build) Either a missing BR or an X-dep missing/bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:52:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:52:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226501] Merge Review: traceroute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221752.l1MHqmPV007477@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: traceroute https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226501 dmitry at butskoy.name changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dmitry at butskoy.name 2007-02-22 12:52 EST ------- > other packages which got fedora-review +. [snip] > no guideline forbidding that OK, let's it be. > are you doing any formal review? Yep. The package's .spec was derived from the tarball's .spec, which was written by me using all FE guidelines :) . But I've re-checked things again. Must/SHould items: OK rmplint: OK APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:56:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:56:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229250] Review Request: koji - Build system tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221756.l1MHuR1F007680@bugzilla.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: koji - Build system tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229250 ------- Additional Comments From dlutter at redhat.com 2007-02-22 12:56 EST ------- One small nit (and I know I am late to the party): koji-builder creates a user with a homedir of /builddir ... shouldn't that go into /var/lib/ according to the FHS ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 17:58:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:58:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221758.l1MHw4eG007887@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 12:58 EST ------- after adding BuildRequires: libXcursor-devel libXfixes-devel now I see RuntimeError: pkg-config --cflags --libs gtk+-2.0 glib-2.0 pygtk-2.0 firefox-gtkmozembed firefox-xpcom outputted the following error: Package gtk+-2.0 was not found in the pkg-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `gtk+-2.0.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable No package 'gtk+-2.0' found adding BuildRequires: gtk2-devel iterating again... finished build. So, looks like we need to add: BuildRequires: libXcursor-devel libXfixes-devel BuildRequires: gtk2-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:00:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:00:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221800.l1MI0PLP007996@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-22 13:00 EST ------- Changed it, the spec file is at the usual place, the new src rpm is here: http://www.personal.uni-jena.de/~p1woro/fedorarpms/speedcrunch-0.7-0.4.beta2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:06:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:06:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221806.l1MI6J4G008534@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 13:06 EST ------- These look mostly harmless: $ rpmlint Democracy-0.9.5-3.fc7.i386.rpm E: Democracy non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/democracy/coverage.py 0644 E: Democracy non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/democracy/timetemplates.py 0644 W: Democracy wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/Democracy-0.9.5/CREDITS E: Democracy non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/democracy/feedparser.py 0644 Add the missing BR's and looks like we have a winner. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:15:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:15:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229676] New: Review Request: gle - Graphics Layout Engine 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=229676 Summary: Review Request: gle - Graphics Layout Engine Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: terjeros at phys.ntnu.no QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/gle/gle.spec SRPM URL: http://web.phys.ntnu.no/~terjeros/gle/gle-4.0.12-2.fc6.src.rpm Description: GLE (Graphics Layout Engine) is a high-quality graphics package for scientists, combining a user-friendly scripting language with a full range of facilities for producing publication-quality graphs, diagrams, posters and slides. GLE provides LaTeX quality fonts together with a flexible graphics module which allows the user to specify any feature of a graph. Complex pictures can be drawn with user-defined subroutines and simple looping structures. Current output formats include EPS, PS, PDF, JPEG, and PNG. More info: http://www.gle-graphics.org/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:15:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:15:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221815.l1MIFk82009155@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From tscherf at redhat.com 2007-02-22 13:15 EST ------- Looks like we figured out the same thing during the same time. :) Was also looking for addional BR after Mock building failed. Added the necessary BR and now it builds in Mock without problems. http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/rpms/fedora/Democracy.spec http://people.redhat.com/tscherf/rpms/fedora/Democracy-0.9.5-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:19:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:19:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221819.l1MIJBLw009619@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-22 13:19 EST ------- Democracy rules, APPROVED. Be careful about removing some of the python runtime Req's, I didn't verify if those are still Required or not: gnome-python2-gtkmozembed gnome-python2-gconf dbus-python -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:21:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:21:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221821.l1MILPDk009923@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-22 13:21 EST ------- As one of those users... I'm KEEN on getting this in. Is the issue of the vigra library really a blocker? The 'thou shall not build statically' rule has room for exceptions and its not as strict as the 'do not ship static libraries for use by others' rule. Or to ask it another way... how is this case different from what is done with the applications shipped in the netcdf package, which build statically against netcdf libraries...until the next upstream release is available which will make it possible to build dynamically? There is already precedent in the software repository for statically linking against libraries, as special cases. Has upstream for the vigra library reject the modifications? Or is this strictly a matter of slow development timescales for the vigra library project to incorporate changes. If there is a way forward with upstream, so that we can link dynamically in a future version, I don't see this a blocker. But if the upstream project has rejected the modifications, then the library will need to be forked into a seperate project and shipped as a dynamic library in the hugin package. If we are going to special case this, then we need to have some confidence that the issue will become irrelevant as part of forseeable upstream development. Again I refer to the netcdf package as an example, and the development work being done to on netcdf v4 which should fix the special case static linking that the netcdf v3 package has to do. Have has this been taken to the extras or maintainers list for a larger discussion, concerning this can be considered a special case allowance? -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:26:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:26:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221826.l1MIQUKc010815@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mitr at redhat.com |tibbs at math.uh.edu ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-22 13:26 EST ------- Actually not. Just close this bug when the fixed package is built for rawhide. I think it already is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:27:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:27:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221827.l1MIRHeq010937@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 peter at thecodergeek.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |peter at thecodergeek.com ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-22 13:27 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > Or to ask it another way... how is this case different from what is done with > the applications shipped in the netcdf package, which build statically against > netcdf libraries...until the next upstream release is available which will make > it possible to build dynamically? There is already precedent in the software > repository for statically linking against libraries, as special cases. > As another example (though perhaps a bit tangential), viaideinfo builds against the static library from pciutils, since it [pciutils-devel] provides no shared library at this time. This should really be brought up on the maintainers list, methinks. (Would this be a good potential topic fot the next FESCo meeting?) Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:27:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:27:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221827.l1MIRPf0010970@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-22 13:27 EST ------- If the approved package has been built for rawhide, you can go ahead and close this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:28:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:28:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226189] Merge Review: neon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221828.l1MIS8mS011056@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: neon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226189 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-22 13:28 EST ------- If the fixed package has been built for rawhide, you can go ahead and close this bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:42:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:42:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221842.l1MIgE8F012512@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-22 13:42 EST ------- Before taking it to the fedora-bar-brawl mailinglist, I'd first feel better knowing what the state of the modifications are in terms of upstream adoption. Since the underlying reason we have the static linking here is some sort of library modification... i want to know which resolution path we will be travelling. Are these in the pipe to be included in future upstream library versions.. or are they rejected modifications which will require a library fork, and thus more downstream work to resolve long term. We have a stronger argument for inclusion if there is a clear picture of how this will be worked out. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 18:57:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228295] Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221857.l1MIvUSL013618@bugzilla.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: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228295 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-22 13:57 EST ------- Okay. On it_IR or fr_FR translation correctly appeared (note: I cannot read/write Itarian/French) ------------------------------------------------ This package (kbilliards) is APPROVED by me. ------------------------------------------------ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 19:21:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:21:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229591] Review Request: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221921.l1MJLKm1015542@bugzilla.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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: lshw - |Review Request: lshw - |Hardware Lister (lshw) |Hardware Lister (lshw) Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-22 14:21 EST ------- For a start: - It would have made life easier for reviewers if you had provided links to the spec and src.rpm, not to a tar - Vendor should not be used, it will set by the build system - Source should be a full URL to the downloadable file - BuildRoot does not respect the current mandatory value (you can leave it alone for now, the value is still under discussion) as specified by wiki/PackagingGuidelines - There is no Changelog entry More comments later -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 19:23:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:23:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 185535] Review Request: lurker In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221923.l1MJNOaG015714@bugzilla.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: lurker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185535 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | Flag|needinfo?(jdennis at redhat.com|fedora-review- |) | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-22 14:23 EST ------- No response in ages; I'm closing this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 19:24:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:24:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 187326] Review Request: smokeping - Network latency grapher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221924.l1MJO7TE015802@bugzilla.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: smokeping - Network latency grapher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187326 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NOTABUG Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | Flag|needinfo?(andreas at bawue.net)|fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-22 14:24 EST ------- No progress in many months now; I'm closing this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 19:24:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:24:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 187313] Review Request: perl-Authen-Radius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221924.l1MJOf8o015887@bugzilla.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-Authen-Radius https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187313 bugzilla at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package- |list at redhat.com |review at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 19:45:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:45:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221945.l1MJjevS017601@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|chris.stone at gmail.com |nobody at fedoraproject.org Flag|fedora-review? | ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-22 14:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > I haven't had time to go through the rpmlint list exhaustively, it looks 99% > useless. Can someone sort out the wheat from the chaff? That's not going to be me. I'm doing this on a volunteer basis, and quite frankly it is not worth my time to deal with this. Therefore I'm removing myself from this review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 19:54:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:54:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229591] Review Request: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702221954.l1MJsnVV018501@bugzilla.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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-22 14:54 EST ------- Here we go: comments after successfully building in mock/rawhide/i386: - build step does not take into account $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - the generated debuginfo package is empty - according to wiki/PackagingGuidelines/Conditional dependencies, the GUI rpm should be generated by default, so I suggest to use as default the "with_gui" flag rather then "without gui" - what is the rationale behind installing the binaries with bin.bin as owner and 555 as permissions? - I see no reason in defining the name, version and release in private macros and then using them to set the Name, Version and Release tags. You can as well define directly those three and use them later in the spec. - last but nit least, rpmlint says E: lshw description-line-too-long Please split the line in chunks of no more then 72 chars PS: in the previous comment, the line about the Vendor tag should have been: Vendor should not be used, it will be set by the build system (see wiki/PackagingGuidelines/Tags) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 20:00:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:00:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229591] Review Request: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222000.l1MK0pee019469@bugzilla.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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-22 15:00 EST ------- You should also fix the following warnings triggers by rpmlint when processing the src.rpm obtained via rpmbuild -ts lshw.tar.gz: W: lshw strange-permission lshw.spec 0600 Obvious fix here W: lshw setup-not-quiet Just use %setup -q W: lshw mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 54) Please use either spaces or tabs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 20:03:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:03:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226294] Merge Review: php In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222003.l1MK3cHt019722@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: php Alias: php https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226294 chris.stone at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jorton at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-22 15:03 EST ------- Reassigning to jorton at redhat.com, I think this is how it was originally set. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 21:02:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:02:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222102.l1ML2FTp025728@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 tscherf at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From tscherf at redhat.com 2007-02-22 16:02 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: Democracy Short Description: Internet TV and video player Owners: tscherf at redhat.com Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 21:08:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:08:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222108.l1ML8VVV026189@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 ------- Additional Comments From rafapp at hotmail.com 2007-02-22 16:08 EST ------- It seems vigra did a release (1.5 from 1.4) in late December. Has this incorporated the Hugin fixes? There is credit to the Hugin team in the changelog. http://kogs-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/~koethe/vigra/doc/vigra/CreditsChangelog.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 21:13:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:13:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208678] Review Request: SimGear - Simulation library components In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222113.l1MLD1w9026600@bugzilla.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: SimGear - Simulation library components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208678 tcallawa at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa at redhat.com 2007-02-22 16:12 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: SimGear Short Description: Simulation library components Owners: tcallawa at redhat.com Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 21:21:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:21:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229243] Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222121.l1MLLilM027499@bugzilla.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: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229243 gemi at bluewin.ch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |gemi at bluewin.ch OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gemi at bluewin.ch 2007-02-22 16:21 EST ------- rpmlint compat-wxGTK26-debuginfo-2.6.3-2.i386.rpm: W: compat-wxGTK26-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/wxGTK-2.6.3/include/wx/msgout.h E: compat-wxGTK26-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/wxGTK-2.6.3/src/common/msgout.cpp Some people insist on this being fixed :-) Otherwise, the package has already been reviewed in a slightly different form. It installs correctly as far as I can see. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 21:30:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:30:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222130.l1MLUscm028365@bugzilla.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: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun at gmail.com 2007-02-22 16:30 EST ------- Spec URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/strigi/strigi.spec SRPM URL: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/strigi/strigi-0.3.11-2.src.rpm Here is an updated package that addresses all(?) posted comments (except the last one). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 21:43:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:43:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222143.l1MLhM87029816@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 ------- Additional Comments From bruno at postle.net 2007-02-22 16:43 EST ------- The modifications in the hugin version of vigra have been submitted upstream and some of them are already in vigra-1.5.0 (which went into the fedora build system last night coincidentally). This is definitely not a permanent fork, just some stuff that isn't yet clean enough to go further upstream. Note that the vigra 'library' is mostly c++ headers. The linkable part 'vigraimpex' is actually just a small bit of it, so in reality you are statically including it at build time whichever way you look at it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 21:50:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:50:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222150.l1MLomm3030712@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-22 16:50 EST ------- Some mistakes are found. http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/qdbm-1.8.74-2.fc7.src.rpm http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/qdbm.spec * Fri Feb 23 2007 Mamoru Tasaka - 1.8.74-2 - Add missing release dependency - Change group from Development to System Environment - Remove duplicate files and fix the dependency for main package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 21:52:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:52:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222152.l1MLq3bP030811@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-22 16:52 EST ------- Some mistakes are found. http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/hyperestraier-1.4.9-2.fc7.src.rpm http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/hyperestraier.spec * Fri Feb 23 2007 Mamoru Tasaka - 1.4.9-2 - Remove duplicate files and fix the dependency for main package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 21:53:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:53:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222153.l1MLrY6P030942@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-22 16:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17) > The modifications in the hugin version of vigra have been submitted upstream and > some of them are already in vigra-1.5.0 (which went into the fedora build system > last night coincidentally). This is definitely not a permanent fork, just some > stuff that isn't yet clean enough to go further upstream. Sounds to me like this is an acceptable path forward in terms of long term development interests nullifying the underlying issue here. Clearly the necessary upstream development communication and interaction is happening as evidenced by the latest vigra release. I think we its perfectly appropriate to let this package in with an internal library statically linking. I'll even volunteer to co-maintain the package and watch the progress of the upstream vigra library development, and help transition the package to using the standard vigra library when its appropriate. Now we need to hear from the currently assigned reviewer. Paul, is this an acceptable special case situation? Or would you like to open this up to a larger discussion on the mailinglists? -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 22:32:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:32:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229243] Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222232.l1MMW8x2002455@bugzilla.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: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229243 bugs.michael at gmx.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-22 17:31 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: compat-wxGTK26 Short Description: wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x Owners: bugs.michael at gmx.net Branches: devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 22:57:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:57:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229591] Review Request: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222257.l1MMv3l0003719@bugzilla.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: lshw - Hardware Lister (lshw) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229591 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(patrick.pichon at lap | |oste.net) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 23:16:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:16:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229728] New: Review Request: polyml - Poly/ML compiler and runtime system 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=229728 Summary: Review Request: polyml - Poly/ML compiler and runtime system Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: gemi at bluewin.ch QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/polyml.spec SRPM URL: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/6/i386/SRPMS.gemi/polyml-5.0-1.src.rpm Description: Poly/ML is a full implementation of Standard ML available as open-source. This release supports the ML97 version of the language and the Standard Basis Library. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 23:26:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:26:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223592] Review Request: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222326.l1MNQFaD004916@bugzilla.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: wuja - Gnome desktop applet for integration with Google calendar https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223592 ------- Additional Comments From dgoodwin at dangerouslyinc.com 2007-02-22 18:26 EST ------- Corrected the project description and renamed back to wuja (from gnome-applet-wuja). Wuja just runs in the tray, but isn't a desktop applet. Updated URL's: http://dangerouslyinc.com/files/wuja/wuja.spec http://dangerouslyinc.com/files/wuja/wuja-0.0.6-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 23:52:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:52:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229321] Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222352.l1MNq7Tf005737@bugzilla.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: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 jwilson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jwilson at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-22 18:51 EST ------- I'll see if I can make another run through the latest srpm tomorrow. FYI, the spec you're linking to is a rather outdated one that doesn't match what's in the srpm... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Feb 22 23:59:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:59:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229321] Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702222359.l1MNxgFi006074@bugzilla.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: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 ------- Additional Comments From devrim at commandprompt.com 2007-02-22 18:59 EST ------- Hi, (In reply to comment #3) > I'll see if I can make another run through the latest srpm tomorrow. Ok. > FYI, the spec you're linking to is a rather outdated one that doesn't match > what's in the srpm... Ah thanks. It is a copy-paste laziness :) Here is the real spec: http://developer.postgresql.org/~devrim/rpms/other/pgpool-II/postgresql-pgpool-II.spec Regards, Devrim -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 00:02:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:02:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229323] Review Request: PgpoolAdmin - web-based pgpool administration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230002.l1N02NAF006237@bugzilla.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: PgpoolAdmin - web-based pgpool administration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229323 devrim at commandprompt.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |229321 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 00:02:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:02:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229321] Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230002.l1N02Oto006249@bugzilla.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: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 devrim at commandprompt.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |229323 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 00:02:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:02:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229322] Review Request: pgpool-ha : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230002.l1N02Yij006268@bugzilla.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: pgpool-ha : Pgpool-HA uses heartbeat to keep pgpool from being a single point of failure https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229322 devrim at commandprompt.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |229321 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 00:02:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:02:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229321] Review Request: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230002.l1N02j3k006285@bugzilla.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: pgpool-II : Connection pooling/replication server for PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229321 devrim at commandprompt.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |229322 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 01:08:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:08:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 210776] Review Request: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230108.l1N18FDC008307@bugzilla.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: monotools - access to monodoc without using monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210776 ------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2007-02-22 20:08 EST ------- Spec URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/mono-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://nodoid.homelinux.org/fedora/mono-tools-1.2.3-2.src.rpm Should fix the x86_64 problem -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 01:42:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:42:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230142.l1N1gHHc009553@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 peter at thecodergeek.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-22 20:41 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: deluge Short Description: A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Owners: peter at thecodergeek.com Branches: FC-5, FC-6, and devel InitialCC: None -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 03:40:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:40:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226193] Merge Review: net-tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230340.l1N3eZVt014652@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: net-tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226193 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-22 22:40 EST ------- OK, everything looks good to me. APPROVED The fixed package is already in the repo, so I'll go ahead and close this ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 03:42:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:42:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230342.l1N3gg79014840@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-22 22:42 EST ------- And I do Agree with that... It's goog and clean. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 03:44:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:44:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229098] Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230344.l1N3i38Y014931@bugzilla.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: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229098 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-22 22:43 EST ------- ping ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 03:53:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:53:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229154] Review Request: konwert - Converter of character encodings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230353.l1N3rEU0015554@bugzilla.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: konwert - Converter of character encodings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229154 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-22 22:53 EST ------- you should use only tabs in your spec file. Move your forward-key just after your "sharedir=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir} \" you will see. Vim is your friend... ;-) Spec file and srpm don't look to be fix for last comment #12. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 03:53:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:53:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197137] Review Request: Conga - Remote management interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230353.l1N3rY0g015596@bugzilla.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: Conga - Remote management interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197137 jkeating at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(jparsons at redhat.co | |m) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:01:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:01:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230401.l1N41TsR016201@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-22 23:01 EST ------- The fact is, the vendor id is automaticaly genereted. I'll discuss with Rdieter about that. As you can see in Guidelines page, there's not mention about the use of "--add categorie=" which's deprecated in spec file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:17:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:17:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230417.l1N4HiHA017553@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 jpmahowald at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jpmahowald at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com 2007-02-22 23:17 EST ------- Who is this assigned to now? You mean the gmath replacement is public domain? LICENSE in the 3.1.6-4 sources says GPL 2. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:38:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:38:58 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217350=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2100-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2100_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230438.l1N4cvvJ019699@bugzilla.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: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-22 23:38 EST ------- Dominik - feel free to jump in, but I thought I'd kick-start it. MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - *** ** Group tag should probably be 'Firmware', per discussion on fedora-packaging. - License - OK - License field in spec matches - *** ** Per fedora-packaging discussion, License tag should be 'Redistributable firmware, no modification permitted' - License file included in package - OK - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK - Package needs ExcludeArch - *** This packge is noarch. However, it is only relevant for certain architectures. Therefore, it may be helpful to add: ExclusiveArch: i386 x86_64 to tell composition tools to only include the package on those arches. - BuildRequires correct - OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - *** It is suggested to change to: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - OK - No rpmlint output. - **** source rpmlint: E: ipw2100-firmware hardcoded-library-path in /lib/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2100. W: ipw2100-firmware setup-not-quiet E: ipw2100-firmware hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/firmware E: ipw2100-firmware hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/ E: ipw2100-firmware hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2100 E: ipw2100-firmware hardcoded-library-path in /lib/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2100 E: ipw2100-firmware hardcoded-library-path in /lib/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2100 E: ipw2100-firmware hardcoded-library-path in /lib/firmware/*.fw hardcoded-library-path is OK, as /lib/firmware is the defined dir. Feel free to fix the setup warning. Binary package: W: ipw2100-firmware symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/ipw2100-firmware-1.3/LICENSE /lib/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2100 Any reason it's a symlink as opposed to just a file? - final provides and requires are sane - OK SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK - Should build on all supported archs - OK - Should function as described. - not tested - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - OK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:45:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:45:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228971] Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230445.l1N4j53o020346@bugzilla.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: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228971 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:45:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:45:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228970] Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230445.l1N4jHao020370@bugzilla.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: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228970 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:46:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:46:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230446.l1N4k96J020452@bugzilla.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-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229257 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 23:46 EST ------- Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url ef0af016a7f23a1bea54fe90aa45b444 Math-Random-MT-Auto-5.04.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Dose owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_harness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/00-load...........# Testing Math::Random::MT::Auto 5.04 ok t/01-mersenne.......ok t/02-gaussian.......ok t/03-threads........ok t/04-win32..........skipped all skipped: Not Win32 t/05-dev_urandom....ok t/06-dev_random.....ok t/07-random_org.....skipped all skipped: LWP::UserAgent not available t/08-hotbits........skipped all skipped: LWP::UserAgent not available t/09-state..........ok t/10-deviates.......ok t/11-range..........ok t/12-rn_info........skipped all skipped: LWP::UserAgent not available t/13-overload.......ok t/14-serialize......ok t/15-shared.........ok t/99-pod............ok All tests successful, 4 tests skipped. Files=17, Tests=5598, 6 wallclock secs ( 4.91 cusr + 0.25 csys = 5.16 CPU) +Provides: Auto.so perl(Math::Random::MT::Auto) = 5.04 perl(Math::Random::MT::Auto::Range) = 5.04 APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:48:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:48:36 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217350=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2100-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2100_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230448.l1N4maO3020716@bugzilla.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: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-22 23:48 EST ------- Whoops, it doesn't have a dist tag - feel free to add. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:49:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:49:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230449.l1N4n8Tu020766@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:49:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:49:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230449.l1N4nJVS020792@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:52:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:52:36 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230452.l1N4qabe021134@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-22 23:52 EST ------- MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. *** Per fedora-packaging, Group should probably be 'Firmware'. - License - OK - License field in spec matches *** Per fedora-packaging, License should be 'Redistributable firmware, no modification permitted' - License file included in package - OK - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK - Package needs ExcludeArch - *** This packge is noarch. However, it is only relevant for certain architectures. Therefore, it may be helpful to add: ExclusiveArch: i386 x86_64 to tell composition tools to only include the package on those arches. - BuildRequires correct - OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - *** It is suggested to change to: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - OK - No rpmlint output. - *** source rpmlint: E: ipw2200-firmware hardcoded-library-path in /lib/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2200. W: ipw2200-firmware setup-not-quiet E: ipw2200-firmware hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/firmware E: ipw2200-firmware hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/ E: ipw2200-firmware hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/lib/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2200 E: ipw2200-firmware hardcoded-library-path in /lib/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2200 E: ipw2200-firmware hardcoded-library-path in /lib/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2200 E: ipw2200-firmware hardcoded-library-path in /lib/firmware/*.fw hardcoded-library-path is OK for this package. Feel free to fix the setup warning. binary rpmlint: W: ipw2200-firmware symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/ipw2200-firmware-3.0/LICENSE /lib/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2200 Why is that a symlink rather than a file? - final provides and requires are sane - OK SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK - Should build on all supported archs - OK - Should function as described. - checked, WORKSFORME - Should have dist tag - *** Feel free to add one. - Should package latest version - OK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 04:55:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:55:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230455.l1N4tJix021401@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-22 23:55 EST ------- Thanks Rex for pointing Naming of package. Thanks Ronald for adding correct Category to Desktop file. Now i can see Menu option under Applications. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 05:00:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230500.l1N507UK021936@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-23 00:00 EST ------- No, vendor is not automatically generated for .desktop files. Where did you get this info (a link would be appreciated)? The guidelines are quite clear on the usage and the reasoning for it. I think you must be confused about adding a Vendor: tag/header to the specfile. That (Vendor:) isn't required and indeed is generated. The vendor option to desktop-file-install is not. Please edit the specfile to remove the vendor option and try to build in mock. You'll see an error like the following at the desktop-file-install command: + desktop-file-install --mode 0644 --dir /var/tmp/gtkpod-0.99.8-3.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications gtkpod.desktop Must specify the vendor namespace for these files with --vendor I did this with FC6 as the target, but I have no reason to expect it to be different in development. If you find that it is, please let me know. I'm not sure what you mean about "--add-categorie" - I don't have that in the spec file. AFAIK, there are times when adding or removing categories from an upstream .desktop file are needed, but that's irrelevant to this review. If you want to get clarification on this, please do so in the thread on fedora-packaging that I started so that I (and others) can be included in the discussion. Is there anything else that's holding up approval of this package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 05:03:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:03:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230503.l1N532p7022216@bugzilla.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: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-23 00:03 EST ------- As this is GPL firmware, we really can't ship *just* the binary images. Hence, we're probably better off using a git snapshot of: http://www.deine-taler.de/zd1211/zd1211_fw.git Actually, you may want to prod the upstream sourceforge.net people if they could be so kind as to ship tarballs of the source there with the generator. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 05:08:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:08:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230508.l1N58OqL022684@bugzilla.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: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-23 00:08 EST ------- In fact, I'll send them mail. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 05:15:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:15:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230515.l1N5FCiF023177@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 06:47:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:47:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230647.l1N6lY98026674@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-23 01:47 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: usbsink Short Description: program for automated file synch over USB Owners: jspaleta at gmail.com Branches: devel FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 07:09:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:09:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230709.l1N79fGX027387@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-23 02:09 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17) > I did this with FC6 as the target, but I have no reason to expect it to be > different in development. If you find that it is, please let me know. I just did a mock build against development and desktop-file-install there doesn't error, so it sit corrected. However, without the vendor tag the installed .desktop file is named gtkpod.desktop and not fedora-gtkpod.desktop as it would be with the --vendor option set. This is what I understand the guidelines to be concerned about: the changing name of the desktop file (and its effect on menu editors). I intend to build gtkpod for both FC6 and development and I don't think they should use different names for the .desktop file. As always, if I'm missing something obvious or something that's been changed, please point me to it so I can learn. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 07:18:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:18:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228295] Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230718.l1N7IUmm027667@bugzilla.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: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228295 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-23 02:18 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: kbilliards Short Description: A Fun Billiards Simulator Game Owners: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Branches: FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 08:10:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 03:10:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230810.l1N8Apvd029126@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 tscherf at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 09:29:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:29:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229728] Review Request: polyml - Poly/ML compiler and runtime system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230929.l1N9TrOi001224@bugzilla.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: polyml - Poly/ML compiler and runtime system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229728 gemi at bluewin.ch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |163776 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 09:39:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:39:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226186] Merge Review: ncpfs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230939.l1N9dsFK001967@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncpfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226186 mitr at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From mitr at redhat.com 2007-02-23 04:39 EST ------- Thanks for the correction. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 09:52:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:52:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225786] Merge Review: gd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230952.l1N9qd1I003556@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225786 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-23 04:52 EST ------- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 09:59:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:59:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225948] Merge Review: joe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702230959.l1N9xLnN004250@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: joe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225948 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-23 04:59 EST ------- Source: W: joe macro-in-%changelog doc W: joe macro-in-%changelog patch Arch: W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/charmaps/klingon W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/doc/ChangeLog W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/doc/HACKING W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/doc/HINTS W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/doc/LIST W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/doc/NEWS W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/doc/README W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/ftyperc W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/jicerc.ru W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/jmacsrc W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/joerc W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/jpicorc W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/jstarrc W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/lang/de.po W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/lang/fr.po W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/lang/ru.po W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/rjoerc W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/4gl.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/ada.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/asm.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/awk.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/c.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/cobol.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/conf.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/csh.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/css.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/diff.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/fortran.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/haskell.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/html.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/java.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/joerc.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/lisp.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/lua.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/m4.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/mail.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/mason.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/ocaml.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/pascal.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/perl.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/php.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/ps.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/python.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/rexx.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/ruby.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/sed.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/sh.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/skill.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/sml.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/sql.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/tcl.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/tex.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/troff.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/verilog.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/vhdl.jsf W: joe conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/joe/syntax/xml.jsf -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:03:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:03:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226407] Merge Review: sendmail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231003.l1NA3mnH004854@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sendmail https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226407 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:10:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:10:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226296] Merge Review: pilot-link In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231010.l1NAAvUu005687@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pilot-link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226296 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-23 05:10 EST ------- Source: W: pilot-link summary-ended-with-dot File transfer utilities between Linux and PalmPilots. W: pilot-link prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig W: pilot-link buildprereq-use perl Arch: W: pilot-link summary-ended-with-dot File transfer utilities between Linux and PalmPilots. devel: W: pilot-link-devel summary-ended-with-dot PalmPilot development header files. W: pilot-link-devel no-documentation Replace buildroot Perl shouldn't be in prereq. Remove %makeinstall macro Deafattr needs 4 argument. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:12:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:12:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225290] Merge Review: attr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231012.l1NACtww005906@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: attr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225290 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-23 05:12 EST ------- fixed in attr-2.4.32-2.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:17:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:17:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225951] Merge Review: jpilot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231017.l1NAHIVl006334@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jpilot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225951 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-23 05:17 EST ------- Source: E: jpilot tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: jpilot non-utf8-spec-file jpilot.spec W: jpilot buildprereq-use gtk2-devel >= 2.0.3 W: jpilot buildprereq-use pilot-link-devel W: jpilot buildprereq-use pilot-link W: jpilot buildprereq-use perl-XML-Parser W: jpilot buildprereq-use openssl-devel Arch: E: jpilot tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: jpilot script-without-shebang /usr/share/jpilot/jpilotrc.default E: jpilot script-without-shebang /usr/share/jpilot/jpilotrc.steel E: jpilot script-without-shebang /usr/share/jpilot/jpilotrc.green E: jpilot script-without-shebang /usr/share/jpilot/jpilotrc.blue E: jpilot script-without-shebang /usr/share/jpilot/jpilotrc.purple debug: E: jpilot-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog Replace BuildRoot Defattr has to have 4 parametres. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:23:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:23:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231023.l1NANFdk006937@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-23 05:23 EST ------- Oops I missed that one. I checked buildlog only and my eyes missed to check duplicate files when i did rpm -qlvp on RPMS. Thanks for catching that. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:24:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:24:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226121] Merge Review: man-pages-cs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231024.l1NAOL4r007083@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: man-pages-cs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226121 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-23 05:24 EST ------- Source: W: man-pages-cs summary-ended-with-dot Czech man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. E: man-pages-cs tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: man-pages-cs no-url-tag E: man-pages-cs non-utf8-spec-file man-pages-cs.spec W: man-pages-cs patch-not-applied Patch0: man-pages-cs-0.14-hyphen.patch Arch: W: man-pages-cs summary-ended-with-dot Czech man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. E: man-pages-cs tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: man-pages-cs no-url-tag Release number: missing dist tag Buildroot: replace with new Defattr: 4 parametres -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:28:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226189] Merge Review: neon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231028.l1NASLjQ007487@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: neon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226189 jorton at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Fixed In Version| |0.25.5-6 ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-23 05:28 EST ------- Done now - thanks for your time! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:33:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:33:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226122] Merge Review: man-pages-da In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231033.l1NAX2B5007931@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: man-pages-da https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226122 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-23 05:32 EST ------- Source: W: man-pages-da summary-ended-with-dot Danish man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. E: man-pages-da tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: man-pages-da non-utf8-spec-file man-pages-da.spec Arch: W: man-pages-da summary-ended-with-dot Danish man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. E: man-pages-da tag-not-utf8 %changelog Wrong source ftp. Diff: 1c1 < Summary: Danish man pages from the Linux Documentation Project --- > Summary: Danish man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. 4c4 < Release: 13%{?dist} --- > Release: 12.1.1 10c10 < BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --- > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root 36c36 < %defattr(-,root,root,-) --- > %defattr(-,root,root) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:39:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226128] Merge Review: man-pages-pl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231039.l1NAdrtK008728@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: man-pages-pl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226128 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-23 05:39 EST ------- Source: W: man-pages-pl summary-ended-with-dot Polish man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. E: man-pages-pl tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: man-pages-pl no-url-tag E: man-pages-pl non-utf8-spec-file man-pages-pl.spec Arch: W: man-pages-pl summary-ended-with-dot Polish man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. E: man-pages-pl tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: man-pages-pl no-url-tag Md5sum: 53dbc41853d166e7e96d7f8054015adc man-PL24-10-2005.tar.gz 2548a5bbab11998017b6ea8e98058e2c man-PL26-01-2007.tar.gz -> new version, maybe you can update. Diff: 2c2 < Summary: Polish man pages from the Linux Documentation Project --- > Summary: Polish man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. 5c5 < Release: 3%{?dist} --- > Release: 2.1 9,10c9,11 < Patch0: man-pages-pl-0.24-pidof.patch < BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --- > #Patch0: man-pages-pl-0.22-roffix.patch > Patch1: man-pages-pl-0.24-pidof.patch > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root 12a14 > 19c21,22 < %patch0 -p1 --- > #%patch0 -p1 -b .rofffix > %patch1 -p1 55c58 < %defattr(-,root,root,-) --- > %defattr(-,root,root) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:42:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231042.l1NAg4Ln009028@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-23 05:42 EST ------- Thank you for reviewing and approving my package!! Now I write a CVS request to cvs admin for a new package. ------------------------------------------------------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: qdbm Short Description: Quick Database Manager Owners: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Branches: FC-5 FC-6 FC-devel InitialCC: (nobody) ------------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:47:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:47:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225236] Merge Review: acl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231047.l1NAliPP009756@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225236 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-23 05:47 EST ------- >W: acl prereq-use /sbin/ldconfig >Ignore. This needs to be fixed. 'Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig' fixed in acl-2.2.39-3.fc7, rpmlint doesn't complain anymore. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:50:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:50:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226129] Merge Review: man-pages-ru In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231050.l1NAoRqJ010115@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: man-pages-ru https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226129 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-23 05:50 EST ------- Source: W: man-pages-ru summary-ended-with-dot Russian man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. E: man-pages-ru tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: man-pages-ru non-utf8-spec-file man-pages-ru.spec W: man-pages-ru patch-not-applied Patch0: man-pages-ru-0.6-rofffix.patch Arch:W: man-pages-ru summary-ended-with-dot Russian man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. E: man-pages-ru tag-not-utf8 %changelog Strange source, maybe you should look for new version or ask someone who can read russian ;-) 1c1 < Summary: Russian man pages from the Linux Documentation Project --- > Summary: Russian man pages from the Linux Documentation Project. 3,4c3,4 < Version: 0.9 < Release: %{?dist} --- > Version: 0.97 > Release: 1.1.1 12c12 < BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --- > BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root 14a15 > 39c40 < %defattr(-,root,root,-) --- > %defattr(-,root,root) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 10:58:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:58:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225948] Merge Review: joe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231058.l1NAwqkF011096@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: joe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225948 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-23 05:58 EST ------- Fixed in joe-3.5-3.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 11:04:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:04:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225611] Merge Review: bc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231104.l1NB41Cm011741@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225611 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-23 06:04 EST ------- I've left the grep in the %post section, but fixed the requirements. Other changes are: - fix buildroot - remove trailing dot from summary - fix post/preun requirements - use make install DESTDIR=... - convert changelog to utf-8 - use smp flags -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 11:09:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:09:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231109.l1NB9Ec9012435@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-23 06:09 EST ------- Review: + package builds fine in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM - rpmlint is NOT silent for RPM. (But following rpmlint warning can be ignored W: hyperestraier-java devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libjestraier.so) + source files match upstream. 70e0533f1ca5247d8187afcb51b8d4e0 hyperestraier-1.4.9.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + .pc file present. + -devel,-java,-perl, ruby-hyperestraier subpackage exists. + no .la files. + translations are available for Japanese language. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 11:09:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:09:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225948] Merge Review: joe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231109.l1NB9TiE012494@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: joe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225948 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-23 06:09 EST ------- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 11:20:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:20:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231120.l1NBKetZ013631@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro Flag| |needinfo?(twaugh at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-23 06:20 EST ------- - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - Spec file matches base package name. - Spec has consistant macro usage. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - License is "distributable", already discussed above - License field in spec matches - Spec is legible, in American English - Sources match upstream, sha1sum: a3dafe4b55206dcf19a8b4c67252628c2ad3fab4 symlinks-1.2.tar.gz - No BuildRequires - No locales/find_lang - Package is not relocatable - Permissions are sane [*] - Package has a correct %clean section. - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage not needed/used (no %doc files at all) - no headers/static/.pc/.la libs - no need for ldconfig or scriptlets - not a GUI - Package builds fine in mock/devel/x86_64 - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - Package owns all files it creates; it does not create any directories - rpmlint output: Source RPM: W: symlinks invalid-license distributable - discussed above W: symlinks setup-not-quiet - please consider using setup -q Binary RPM: E: symlinks no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install that;s a MUSTFIX: Package lacks cleaning the buildroot in the %install section rpmlint of symlinks: W: symlinks invalid-license distributable - see above SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK for devel/x86_64 and i386 - Should build on all supported archs - tested on x86_64 and i386, OK - Should function as described - OK - Should have sane scriptlets - OK (no scriptlets) - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - not needed - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) - OK (none) Summary: mostly OK, with one MUSTFIX and a couple of cosmetic fixes: cosmetic: - please consider using the newer preferred value in %files, (-,root,root,-) - please add -q to setup in order to silence it - it would be nice to add usage of smp_flags to make (not that it matters for a 5K source, but the rules are the rules) MUSTFIX - %install should contain rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT Please fix the above and the package is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 11:41:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:41:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225714] Merge Review: e2fsprogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231141.l1NBfqDj014472@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: e2fsprogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225714 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-23 06:41 EST ------- e2fsprogs-1.39-11 prepared for review -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 11:43:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:43:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231143.l1NBhqjK014584@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 Bug 222042 depends on bug 229541, which changed state. Bug 229541 Summary: libtool contain hardcoded "4.1.1" path to gcc libsm and we are in 4.1.2 era https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229541 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 11:45:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:45:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226451] Merge Review: sysstat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231145.l1NBjDm5014646@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226451 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-23 06:45 EST ------- Source: W: sysstat macro-in-%changelog _includedir Arch: W: sysstat log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/sa W: sysstat dangerous-command-in-%preun rm W: sysstat dangerous-command-in-%trigger cp W: sysstat service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/sysstat E: sysstat subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/sysstat md5sum ok, but new version was released. Defattr: 4 parametres Myabe you can rename patches in numeric order. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 11:53:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:53:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225951] Merge Review: jpilot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231153.l1NBrgwt015043@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jpilot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225951 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED CC| |mmaslano at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-23 06:53 EST ------- Fixed in jpilot-0.99.9-3.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:10:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:10:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231210.l1NCAwOU015916@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-23 07:10 EST ------- (In reply to comment #56) > Who is this assigned to now? You can re-pick up if want. Perseus was reviewing it intesive last time, but if want you can re-pick it up. I just want get this into -extras, i really put lot off eforts to clean up upstream version. > > You mean the gmath replacement is public domain? LICENSE in the 3.1.6-4 sources > says GPL 2. gmath.c,.h are gone forever ! matrix.c Its not GPL2 its Public Domain. (look in ogdi-matrix.patch derivated from CVS version of ogdi) That was the wish of maintainer to be Public Domain instead GPLv2 Even mainstream gmath.c..g is gone forever. Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.1.6-5.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:11:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:11:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231211.l1NCBsYE015992@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-23 07:11 EST ------- Thanks!! Request for CVS admin to import this package: -------------------------------------------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: hyperestraier Short Description: A full-text search system Owners: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Branches: FC-5 FC-6 FC-devel InitialCC: (nobody) -------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:37:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:37:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231237.l1NCbQLF017812@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-23 07:37 EST ------- libtool fixed upstream. mock now build gdal against fedora-devel. Notice that not all mirror have latest libtool so safest is to grab latest libtool from download.fedora.redhat.com. latest is: libtool-1.5.22-10.x86_64.rpm, i download it by hand and install it on mock session. the link: Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-7.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:43:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:43:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226113] Merge Review: lynx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231243.l1NChmel018615@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lynx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226113 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED CC| |rnorwood at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-23 07:43 EST ------- Thanks for your comments. The fixed package is lynx-2.8.6-3.fc7. o /etc/lynx.lss probably should be flagged as %noreplace -> fixed However, the URL for Source in the spec file is incorrect. The correct URL for the current version is: http://lynx.isc.org/current/lynx2.8.6rel.2.tar.bz2 -> lynx2.8.6rel.2.tar.bz2 - is not stable version o dist tag is present. Nope. Needs to be added -> added o build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -> fixed o latest version is being packaged. Almost - there is a 2.8.6rel.4 available from upstream now. -> it is not stable version lynx 2.8.6 is te last stable version o %check is present and all tests pass: No. ->There are no tests in lynx package o file permissions are appropriate. Yes, except might want to chmod -x the sample scripts that are located in /usr/share/doc/lynx-2.8.6/samples/ (rpmlint complains about them) -> I think this files should be leaved as executable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:48:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:48:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229243] Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231248.l1NCmV3X019184@bugzilla.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: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229243 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-23 07:48 EST ------- branch created -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:49:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:49:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208678] Review Request: SimGear - Simulation library components In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231249.l1NCneuC019290@bugzilla.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: SimGear - Simulation library components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208678 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-23 07:49 EST ------- cvs created -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:50:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:50:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231250.l1NCokSg019431@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-23 07:50 EST ------- branched -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:51:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:51:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228295] Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231251.l1NCpVS1019491@bugzilla.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: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228295 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-23 07:51 EST ------- branched -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:52:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:52:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231252.l1NCqYF6019581@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-23 07:52 EST ------- branched -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:55:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228188] Review Request: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231255.l1NCt8tg019784@bugzilla.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: usbsink - USBSink is a GNOME program for automatic file synchronization over USB https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228188 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-23 07:54 EST ------- Branched -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:56:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:56:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228295] Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231256.l1NCuihb019936@bugzilla.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: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228295 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dennis at ausil.us ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-23 07:56 EST ------- Looks like you did create the branchis, but didn't add this to owners.list: [hans at localhost fedora-extras]$ common/cvs-import.sh wip/kbilliards/kbilliards-0.8.7b-2.fc7.src.rpm Checking out the modules file... Module 'kbilliards' already exists... Checking out module: 'kbilliards' Unpacking source package: kbilliards-0.8.7b-2.fc7.src.rpm... A kbilliards-0.8.7b-compiler_warnings.patch L kbilliards-0.8.7b.tar.bz2 A kbilliards-destdir.patch A kbilliards.spec A sqrtl.patch Checking : kbilliards-0.8.7b.tar.bz2 on https://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/repo/extras/upload.cgi... Uploading: kbilliards-0.8.7b.tar.bz2 to https://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/repo/extras/upload.cgi... File kbilliards-0.8.7b.tar.bz2 size 2066167 MD5 f773a0a860ac0cb678f5e736860a0fe9 stored OK Source upload succeeded. Don't forget to commit the new ./sources file M sources M .cvsignore cvs commit... cvs commit: Pre-commit check failed cvs commit: Pre-commit check failed cvs [commit aborted]: correct above errors first! [hans at localhost fedora-extras]$ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:57:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:57:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231257.l1NCvZOp020055@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-23 07:57 EST ------- branched -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 12:58:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:58:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231258.l1NCwi86020129@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(twaugh at redhat.com)| ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-23 07:58 EST ------- Tagged and built as 1.2-29.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:00:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231300.l1ND0H8g020238@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-23 08:00 EST ------- branched -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:03:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:03:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231303.l1ND33pJ020381@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-23 08:03 EST ------- Review: OK package builds in mock (FC-5 FC-6 FC-Devel i386,x86_64). OK rpmlint is silent for both SRPM and RPM. OK source files match upstream. OK package meets naming and packaging guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written OK Spec file is written in American English. OK Spec file is legible. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license is open source-compatible. OK License text is included in package. OK %doc is good OK %doc does not affect runtime. OK BuildRequires are proper. + Vendor is set to Fedora. OK %clean is present. OK package installed properly. OK Macro use appears rather consistent. OK Package contains code, not content. OK no static libraries. OK no translations are available. OK Does owns the directories it creates. OK no duplicates in %files. OK Changelog is present and clean. OK file permissions are appropriate. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:03:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:03:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231303.l1ND3CpQ020403@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-23 08:03 EST ------- branched -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:03:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:03:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231303.l1ND3VhP020473@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From dennis at ausil.us 2007-02-23 08:03 EST ------- branched -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:06:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:06:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226113] Merge Review: lynx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231306.l1ND6Cha020600@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lynx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226113 ------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de 2007-02-23 08:06 EST ------- Nope, files in %doc can't be executable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:09:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:09:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231309.l1ND9GWu020744@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-23 08:09 EST ------- for the rest, we will discuss about that in the ML ;-) already sponsored ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:10:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:10:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231310.l1NDA05G020787@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Keywords| |Reopened Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:24:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:24:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231324.l1NDOktM021459@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 ------- Additional Comments From michael_e_brown at dell.com 2007-02-23 08:24 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libsmbios Short Description: Library for accessing BIOS information tables Owners: mebrown at michaels-house.net,matt_domsch at dell.com Branches: devel InitialCC: michael_e_brown at dell.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:36:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:36:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231336.l1NDaxXm022005@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 dennis at ausil.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:44:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:44:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226113] Merge Review: lynx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231344.l1NDiXa4022554@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: lynx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226113 ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-23 08:44 EST ------- Please could you sent me some link to the documentation which supports your opinion? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 13:59:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:59:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231359.l1NDxBc9023985@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-23 08:58 EST ------- I hadn't time to review ogdi that week, maybe this week-end, but if I remember well, for me, the license issues where the only remaining issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 14:12:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:12:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231412.l1NECmSd025407@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, | |needinfo?(twaugh at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-23 09:12 EST ------- All problems fixed. Packaged is APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 14:26:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:26:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225769] Merge Review: freeradius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231426.l1NEQuLV026728@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: freeradius https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225769 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-23 09:26 EST ------- freeradius-1.1.3-3 prepared with fixes for the most common review issues -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 14:28:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:28:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229478] Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231428.l1NESks7026903@bugzilla.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: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-23 09:28 EST ------- First, qdbm rebuild succeeded on FC-devel/6/5. Thank you for review again!! (Review process changed from NEXTRELEASE -> RAWHIDE) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 14:29:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:29:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231429.l1NETJJM026988@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 Bug 229647 depends on bug 229478, which changed state. Bug 229478 Summary: Review Request: qdbm - Quick Database Manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229478 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 14:31:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:31:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231431.l1NEVptd027178@bugzilla.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: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 meyering at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From meyering at redhat.com 2007-02-23 09:31 EST ------- we've "talked", and I too have requested cvsextras access. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: qpidc Short Description: C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid Owners: aconway at redhat.com, meyering at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 14:40:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:40:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226445] Merge Review: symlinks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231440.l1NEe5ig027577@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: symlinks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226445 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |MODIFIED Flag|needinfo?(twaugh at redhat.com)| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 14:42:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:42:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231442.l1NEgoUr027892@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 michael_e_brown at dell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|michael_e_brown at dell.com |mebrown at michaels-house.net -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 14:47:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:47:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226118] Merge Review: mailx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231447.l1NEl1EF028359@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mailx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226118 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED CC| |mmaslano at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-23 09:46 EST ------- Fixed in mailx-8.1.1-45.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 15:10:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:10:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225809] Merge Review: gmp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231510.l1NFALPe031699@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225809 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-23 10:10 EST ------- most common review issues fixed in gmp-4.1.4-12 > - remove trailing dot from summary > - fix buildroot > - fix post/postun/... requirements > - use make install DESTDIR=... > - replace tabs with spaces > - convert changelog to utf-8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 15:38:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:38:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231538.l1NFcnp2002190@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 Matt_Domsch at dell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 15:41:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:41:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226185] Merge Review: ncompress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231541.l1NFfYUE002469@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncompress https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226185 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE AssignedTo|pvrabec at redhat.com |tibbs at math.uh.edu ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-23 10:41 EST ------- The new version is in the repo now, so I'll close this ticket. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 15:45:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:45:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231545.l1NFjY3W003004@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From paskalis at di.uoa.gr 2007-02-23 10:45 EST ------- Karsten, Some (rather minor compared to the initial spec) issues/questions before approval: - Why do you convert the man page from ISO-8859-1 to UTF-8? AFAIK, ISO-8859-1 is a subset of UTF-8, and any ISO-8859-1 text should also be UTF-8 text. Moreover, the manpage is in ASCII, an even smaller subset of UTF-8. Is there any reason for this conversion? - The specfile has really changed a lot since the junkbuster days. Is it really necessary to keep the first 27 lines stating copyrights of the program and a summary of the GPL. I believe a reference of the GPL in the license field should be enough to make it clear that the program is GPL. - Regarding the dynamic or static pcre linking, I am not sure what would be the best thing to do right now. Fact is that the included pcre library used for static linking is very old. It is actually pcre-3.4 dated August 2000! Any fixes during the last 6.5 years are ignored by privoxy if it is compiled using the very old internal copy. On the other hand, the vast majority of privoxy users (most privoxy packages are built with --disable-dynamic-pcre, including Windows builds) use the static internal version, so more testers. My proposal would be to switch to dynamic pcre linking as soon as possible even if it causes some yet unseen bugs. Other than those issues, the package is good to go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 15:46:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:46:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231546.l1NFkGdF003082@bugzilla.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: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-23 10:46 EST ------- Upstream says: ... daily snapshots of the git archive can be found here: http://www.deine-taler.de/zd1211/snapshots/ Uli ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 15:48:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:48:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229647] Review Request: hyperestraier - A full-text search system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231548.l1NFmAmw003324@bugzilla.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: hyperestraier - A full-text search system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229647 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-23 10:48 EST ------- Imported for FE-devel/6/5. For FE-5 I had to disable lzo compression support. Closing now. Thank you for reviewing and approving this package!! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 15:50:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:50:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231550.l1NFojNA003560@bugzilla.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: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-23 10:50 EST ------- thx you for you help! i will update soon... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 15:54:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:54:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223586] Review Request: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231554.l1NFsTop003897@bugzilla.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: strigi - A desktop search program for KDE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223586 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-23 10:54 EST ------- hyperestraier is imported into FE-devel/6/5 (currently available from http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/plague-results/ ) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 15:59:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:59:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231559.l1NFxMYW004367@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-23 10:59 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148675) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148675&action=view) mockbuild log of gdal-1.4.0-7.fc7.i386 mockbuild of gdal-1.4.0-7 passed anyway on FC-devel i386. I will check later (well, this packge is large and it may take some time). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:04:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:04:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226181] Merge Review: nano In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231604.l1NG4XZA005041@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nano https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226181 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|dwmw2 at redhat.com |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(dwmw2 at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-23 11:04 EST ------- Setting flags appropriately according to the finally finalized procedure. There's really not much to be fixed here, just a few easy tweaks to the specfile. If I can find the time I'll try to make a patch to the specfile. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:08:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:08:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227105] Review Request: plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.a9.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231608.l1NG89HU005441@bugzilla.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: plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.a9.2jpp - Plexus Component Descriptor Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227105 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-23 11:07 EST ------- Here are the links to the updated spec file and source rpm. SPEC FILE: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/236/plexus-runtime-builder.spec SOURCE RPM: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/237/plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.1.a9.2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:08:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:08:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231608.l1NG8K9p005478@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-23 11:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19) > OK package builds in mock (FC-5 FC-6 FC-Devel i386,x86_64). Actually, it won't build for FC-5 because libgpod >= 0.4.2 is required and that is not available for FC5 (and won't be, unfortunately - see BZ#196876). Thanks for checking it on x86_64. I don't have access to anything but i386 currently. > APPROVED Thanks. (In reply to comment #20) > for the rest, we will discuss about that in the ML ;-) Sounds good. > already sponsored ? Yep. Thanks for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:21:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:21:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231621.l1NGLQGD007647@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 tmz at pobox.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-23 11:21 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gtkpod Short Description: Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Owners: tmz at pobox.com Branches: FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:27:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:27:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225678] Merge Review: dcraw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231627.l1NGRRAG008385@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dcraw https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225678 nphilipp at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:31:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:31:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226182] Merge Review: nasm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231631.l1NGVDom008881@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226182 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pmachata at redhat.com |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-23 11:31 EST ------- Drat, assignment pingponging caused this to drop completely off of my list. I'll get back to this today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:32:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231632.l1NGWCEh009085@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|rvokal at redhat.com |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-23 11:32 EST ------- Another ticket that disappeared from my list due to assignment pingponging. Fortunately we don't need to do that any longer. I'll get back to this today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:46:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:46:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231646.l1NGk23F010553@bugzilla.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-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229257 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-23 11:46 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto Short Description: Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs Owners: cweyl at alumni.drew.edu Branches: devel InitialCC: fedora-perl-devel-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:52:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:52:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225861] Merge Review: grub In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231652.l1NGqQ8P011237@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: grub https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225861 Bug 225861 depends on bug 223699, which changed state. Bug 223699 Summary: grub: non-failsafe install-info use in scriptlets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223699 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:59:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:59:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219889] Review Request: bootchart - a utility for profiling the boot process In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231659.l1NGx6mI011843@bugzilla.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: bootchart - a utility for profiling the boot process https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219889 ------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com 2007-02-23 11:59 EST ------- Hi John, It's been a couple of months now. Do you want to abandon this package review? AG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 16:59:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231659.l1NGxfuu011917@bugzilla.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-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-23 11:59 EST ------- ping? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 17:41:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:41:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 209906] Review Request: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231741.l1NHfLI5014854@bugzilla.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: elektra - A key/value pair database to store software configurations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209906 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-23 12:41 EST ------- SRPMS: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/elektra/elektra-0.6.8-1.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SPECS: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/elektra/elektra.spec Summary: A key/value pair database to store software configurations Update to 0.6.8 (not sure if timestamp is good as i've took the src.rpm one the webserver was a little down)... - There is some new rpmlint errors from the int?gration of the init.script - I've see that there is a segmentation fault on /usr/sbin/elektra-kdbd - Maybe there is a need to implement PAM acces. - Scripts directory discution. As you have stated this before i'm not sure %doc directory allow executable so I would prefer to have them in datadir/elektra/scripts. If some are not intented to be run and are only for sample, i suggest that they could be sorted and to be in %doc directory I will fix this later and take a quick sight on ldap script as Avi Alkalay suggested... Here is the current state of art, i will continue next week... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 17:45:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:45:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] 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=229826 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bbbush.yuan at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: SRPM URL: Description: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 17:47:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:47:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231747.l1NHlhlX015630@bugzilla.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: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-23 12:47 EST ------- Symlink should be relative. The use of: ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}/src/main py %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} doesn't look good. rpmlint output from rpm: W: symlink-should-be-relative -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 17:56:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:56:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231756.l1NHudlP016131@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-23 12:56 EST ------- Well, for 1.4.0-7.fc7: * BuildRequires - mockbuild log says: ------------------------------------------------------- checking for Xerces C++... disabled ------------------------------------------------------- Can this be enabled by xerces-c-devel? * User dependent rebuild condition? - mockbuild log says: ------------------------------------------------------- Writing /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/Geo/GDAL/Const/.packlist Appending installation info to /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/perllocal.pod /bin/sh: /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/perllocal.pod: Permission denied make[3]: [doc_site_install] Error 1 (ignored) make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gdal-1.4.0/swig/perl' make -f Makefile_Geo__OGR install ------------------------------------------------------- Well, this can be ignored for mockbuild, however, is this dangerous on rebuilding this package as root? * BuildRoot - BuildRoot does not follow current Fedora guideline (please check "Build root tag" section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines) * Header files location - Well, I think all the header files in -devel package should be hidded under %{_includedir}/%{name} to avoid namespace conflict. - And I suggest to fix %{_bindir}/gdal-config accordingly. - By the way what does "CONFIG_DEP_LIBS" in gdal-config mean? * Directory structure - Well, --------------------------------------------------------- # move python in the right path mv %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/*.py %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/gdal cp -p pymod/samples/*.py %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/gdal --------------------------------------------------------- Just explain why putting these python scripts under %{_bindir} is not right? * .la files - The following files are installed. ---------------------------------------------------------- /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/_gdalmodule.la ---------------------------------------------------------- * Redundant dependency - Currently the following explicit dependency are rather redundant. ---------------------------------------------------------- Requires: python >= 2.4 Requires: perl >= 5.8 ---------------------------------------------------------- Check for documentation files and source files may take more time... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 17:58:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:58:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231758.l1NHwfcZ016244@bugzilla.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: grass-6.2.1-1 - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-23 12:58 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148691) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148691&action=view) mockbuild log of grass 6.2.1-3.fc7 mockbuild of grass-6.2.1-3 fails on FC-devel i386. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 18:05:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:05:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231805.l1NI52il016849@bugzilla.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: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 meyering at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |rc040203 at freenet.de ------- Additional Comments From meyering at redhat.com 2007-02-23 09:31 EST ------- we've "talked", and I too have requested cvsextras access. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: qpidc Short Description: C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid Owners: aconway at redhat.com, meyering at redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-23 13:04 EST ------- Looks like Ralf approved this back in Comment #11, but didn't assign to himself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 18:00:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:00:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231800.l1NI0SZI016356@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: grass-6.2.1-|Review Request: grass - |1 - GRASS (Geographic |GRASS (Geographic Resources |Resources Analysis Support |Analysis Support System) |System) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 18:52:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:52:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231852.l1NIqtJl019736@bugzilla.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-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229257 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 18:53:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:53:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231853.l1NIr0JE019763@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mebrown at michaels-house.net |Matt_Domsch at dell.com Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-23 13:52 EST ------- By the newly ratified process, please keep the reviewer assigned both durnig and after the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 18:52:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:52:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231852.l1NIqpf7019726@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 18:53:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:53:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220630] Review Request: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231853.l1NIrH3J019803@bugzilla.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: qpidc - C++ implementation of AMQP messaging spec from Apache Qpid. Upstream for Red Hat Messaging. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220630 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 19:08:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:08:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221675] Review Request: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231908.l1NJ8XAb021180@bugzilla.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: zd1211-firmware - Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221675 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-23 14:08 EST ------- Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/zd1211-firmware/zd1211-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/zd1211-firmware/zd1211-firmware-1.3-3.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm Description: Firmware for zd1211 802.11 wireless devices rpmlint is silent on both sources and binaries I've integrated a devel package but i don't think it is necessary unless a rebuild is done. This can be usefull if any wants to update to a newer/modifies version than the one provided in the kernel (thought i exepect replacement of a kernel module seems not supported by Fedora Extras) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 19:10:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:10:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227098] Review Request: plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231910.l1NJAqjE021335@bugzilla.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: plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227098 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-23 14:10 EST ------- Here are the links to the updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/238/plexus-bsh-factory.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/239/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 19:22:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:22:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227094] Review Request: plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231922.l1NJMQF8022534@bugzilla.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: plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227094 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 19:34:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:34:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227094] Review Request: plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231934.l1NJY9qq023779@bugzilla.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: plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227094 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-23 14:33 EST ------- Here are the links to the updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/241/plexus-ant-factory.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/240/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 19:34:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:34:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229243] Review Request: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231934.l1NJYEpD023792@bugzilla.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: compat-wxGTK26 - wxWidgets/GTK2 2.6.x https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229243 bugs.michael at gmx.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-23 14:34 EST ------- http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=28095 http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/plague-results/fedora-development-extras/compat-wxGTK26/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 19:38:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:38:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227104] Review Request: plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2jpp - Plexus Maven plugin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702231938.l1NJcABJ024179@bugzilla.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: plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2jpp - Plexus Maven plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227104 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 20:25:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:25:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232025.l1NKP58n027897@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-23 15:25 EST ------- According to "NewPackageProcess" I now have to do the steps described at "CVSAdminProcedure". So I added the following snippet and flagged 'fedora cvs' with a '?', but got the error "New Package CVS RequestYou tried to request fedora-cvs. Only a sufficiently empowered user can make this change." What am I supposed to do now? ======================= Package Name: speedcrunch Short Description: high precision KDE calculator Owners: wolters.liste at gmx.net Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 20:25:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:25:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199681] Review Request: slab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232025.l1NKPpBB027962@bugzilla.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: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 ------- Additional Comments From karl at nncc.info 2007-02-23 15:25 EST ------- Has anyone updated this to the latest SVN version? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 20:26:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:26:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199681] Review Request: slab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232026.l1NKQnB9028152@bugzilla.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: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 ------- Additional Comments From karl at nncc.info 2007-02-23 15:26 EST ------- Has anyone updated this to the latest SVN version? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 20:53:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:53:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232053.l1NKrEjb030736@bugzilla.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-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229257 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-23 15:53 EST ------- Please branch for FC-5, FC-6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 21:04:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:04:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232104.l1NL4ivF031374@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-23 16:04 EST ------- The touch is still a bit wrong, since aclocal.m4 is more recent. Moreover the timestamp of Makefile.in needs not to be. The following seems better: touch -r aclocal.m4 configure configure.in Maybe you could use %defattr(-,root,root,-) also for the main package? INSTALL in %doc is unusefull. The remaining rpmlint output seems harmless to me: W: tn5250 dangerous-command-in-%preun rm W: tn5250-devel no-documentation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 21:10:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:10:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199681] Review Request: slab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232110.l1NLAtQS031881@bugzilla.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: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 ------- Additional Comments From denis at poolshark.org 2007-02-23 16:10 EST ------- No, would you like to give it a shot ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 21:13:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:13:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199681] Review Request: slab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232113.l1NLDrhW032156@bugzilla.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: slab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199681 ------- Additional Comments From karl at nncc.info 2007-02-23 16:13 EST ------- I might give it a try over the next few days if i get a chance, I'm really looking forward to trying the new more usable slab menu. Is there any word on the versioning scheme yet? What version is the new SLAB package for SLED? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 21:41:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:41:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232141.l1NLfGie002087@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-23 16:41 EST ------- grep is used in autom4te in a system call, so there is a missing Requires. Otherwise it seems right to me. Ralf, do you see any other issue? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 21:43:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:43:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228707] Review Request: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232143.l1NLhiCc002292@bugzilla.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: KoboDeluxe - 3'rd person scrolling 2D shooter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228707 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-23 16:43 EST ------- Imported and build, closing. Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 21:44:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:44:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228295] Review Request: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232144.l1NLiEh3002448@bugzilla.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: kbilliards - A Fun Billiards Simulator Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228295 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-23 16:44 EST ------- Imported and build, closing. Thanks for the review! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 22:04:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:04:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227104] Review Request: plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2jpp - Plexus Maven plugin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232204.l1NM4U8e004128@bugzilla.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: plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2jpp - Plexus Maven plugin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227104 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-23 17:04 EST ------- Here are the links to the updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/245/plexus-maven-plugin.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/246/plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 22:09:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:09:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232209.l1NM9gbL004504@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-23 17:09 EST ------- A last comment on spec file, linked with W: coreutils strange-permission coreutils-colorls.sh 0775 W: coreutils strange-permission coreutils-colorls.csh 0775 you should consider removing the exec perms from those files in the srpm. The other rpmlint comments seem good to me. I have noticed that a test fails, on a fedora devel with a lot of things installed: make[4]: Entering directory `/home/dumas/src/fc-cvs/coreutils/devel/coreutils-6.7/tests/mv' .... XPASS: acl .... ============================================================== 1 of 36 tests did not behave as expected (1 unexpected passes) (1 tests were not run) Please report to bug-coreutils at gnu.org ============================================================== -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 22:11:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:11:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232211.l1NMBgAa004717@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From rafapp at hotmail.com 2007-02-23 17:11 EST ------- It would be nice if someone could get this working with Fedora, as currently the only way for ATI X200M owners to have dri is to use ATI's fglrx driver, and the only way to have a 3D desktop is to use fglrx + xgl. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 22:15:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:15:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225298] Merge Review: automake14 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232215.l1NMFX60004966@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake14 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225298 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pertusus at free.fr Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-23 17:15 EST ------- I don't see any other issue, it is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 22:46:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:46:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232246.l1NMkQDL006902@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-23 17:46 EST ------- Is there a good reason why the spec does unusual manual installation of documentation via %_defaultdocdir instead of simply doing %doc README license.txt CREDITS in the %files section? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Feb 23 23:15:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:15:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225207] Review Request: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702232315.l1NNFFT5009186@bugzilla.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: libsmbios - library for userspace smbios table parsing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225207 michael_e_brown at dell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 00:06:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:06:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240006.l1O06IeD011203@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-23 19:06 EST ------- > Is there a good reason... not really, is it a problem? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 00:10:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:10:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229098] Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240010.l1O0AYnv011391@bugzilla.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: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229098 ------- Additional Comments From seg at haxxed.com 2007-02-23 19:10 EST ------- Sorry, I got tied up with other things. Updated package: http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/secondlife/openjpeg-1.1-2.src.rpm http://www.haxxed.com/rpms/secondlife/openjpeg.spec * Sat Feb 17 2007 Callum Lerwick 1.1-2 - Move header to a subdirectory. - Fix makefile patch to preserve timestamps during install. I hate using macros unless there's a really good reason. The package name is very unlikely to change, and on the rare occasion that it might, a search and replace isn't a big deal. So I avoid using %{name} The no-doc warning on the devel package is ignoreable. The main package has docs. Hmmm, I actually need to go over the docs, README.linux shouldn't be packaged and ChangeLog might be better in the devel package. And where's the license... I figure the purpose of the makefile patch is self evident, based on the name and by taking a look at it. I put in a comment for the others because otherwise it would not be clear that they're there for the benefit of another package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 00:19:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:19:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228970] Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240019.l1O0Jn6M011569@bugzilla.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: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228970 Christian.Iseli at licr.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From Christian.Iseli at licr.org 2007-02-23 19:19 EST ------- Imported and built. Thanks Parag for the review :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 00:20:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228971] Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240020.l1O0K2Nn011596@bugzilla.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: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228971 Bug 228971 depends on bug 228970, which changed state. Bug 228970 Summary: Review Request: elph - Tool to find motifs in a set of DNA or protein sequences https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228970 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 00:21:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:21:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228971] Review Request: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240021.l1O0L5QJ011642@bugzilla.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: glimmer - System for finding genes in microbial DNA https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228971 Christian.Iseli at licr.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From Christian.Iseli at licr.org 2007-02-23 19:21 EST ------- Imported and built. Thanks Parag for the review :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 00:46:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:46:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229098] Review Request: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240046.l1O0kBhc012308@bugzilla.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: openjpeg - JPEG 2000 codec library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229098 ------- Additional Comments From seg at haxxed.com 2007-02-23 19:45 EST ------- And... looks like OpenJPEG 1.1.1 was just released. Which seems to have the SL patches merged in. Working on it now... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 00:48:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:48:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226182] Merge Review: nasm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240048.l1O0mquV012424@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nasm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226182 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-23 19:48 EST ------- OK, buildroot is good, rpmlint is quiet except for the single line W: nasm-rdoff no-documentation which is not a problem. So we're good to go. APPROVED Go ahead and close this bug when the package has made it into rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 02:07:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:07:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240207.l1O27N6A014625@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 peter at thecodergeek.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-23 21:07 EST ------- Thanks, Dennis and all! Imported and built - so closing as NEXTRELEASE. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 02:36:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:36:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240236.l1O2a85L015526@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael at gmx.net 2007-02-23 21:35 EST ------- It makes installation of additional files via short %doc impossible, because both techniques conflict with eachother. Using the %doc macro to include files located in the extracted tarball in $RPM_BUILD_DIR deletes %_defaultdocdir. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 02:43:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:43:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208737] Review Request: ivman - Generic handler for HAL events In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240243.l1O2hOU5015714@bugzilla.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: ivman - Generic handler for HAL events https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208737 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 21:43 EST ------- 0.6.14 is available now. Any further news from upstream? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 02:49:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225237] Merge Review: acpid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240249.l1O2ntvM015880@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 21:49 EST ------- Sorry I didn't get back to this until now. I see you made the changes for the log file, so all looks good... This package is APPROVED. Per the new offical review process, I will leave it assigned to me with the review flag as + (approved). Feel free to close it RAWHIDE now since it's been pushed out... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 02:53:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:53:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225906] Merge Review: iptables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240253.l1O2r4wY015963@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: iptables https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225906 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag|fedora-review- |needinfo?(twoerner at redhat.co | |m), fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 21:53 EST ------- Setting the review flag to ? here, since this is under review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:02:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:02:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226302] Merge Review: pm-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240302.l1O32I4S016221@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: pm-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226302 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|pknirsch at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |needinfo?(pknirsch at redhat.co | |m), fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:02 EST ------- Per the new review procedure: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html Setting fedora-review to ? and needinfo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:06:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:06:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240306.l1O36ult016477@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|twaugh at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |needinfo?(twaugh at redhat.com) | |, fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:06 EST ------- Resetting flags and such per the new review guidelines: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:08:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:08:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226657] Merge Review: xrestop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240308.l1O38D7i016531@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xrestop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226657 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|sandmann at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |needinfo?(sandmann at redhat.co | |m), fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:07 EST ------- Resetting flags and such per the new offical review guidelines: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:09:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:09:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226813] Merge Review: zsh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240309.l1O39GV0016559@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226813 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|james.antill at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |needinfo?(james.antill at redha | |t.com), fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:09 EST ------- Resetting the flags and such per the new offical review guidelines https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:13:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:13:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229910] New: Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. 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=229910 Summary: Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bpeck at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux-svn.484-1.src.rpm This is my first package for Extras and I'm seeking a sponsor Description: Conmux is a console management program designed to support a large number of console devices and simultaneous users. It currently supports IBM's blade and hmc servers. Its features include: - driver interface abstracts how to connect to the console - helpers for dealing with autobooting - can support additional commands for dealing with power management - allows multiple clients to be connected to the same console -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:14:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:14:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240314.l1O3EIP1016820@bugzilla.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: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910 bpeck at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: Conmux - |Review Request: Conmux - |Console Multiplexor, |Console Multiplexor, |abstracts how to connect via|abstracts how to connect via |backend drivers. |backend drivers. OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:14:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:14:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226660] Merge Review: xterm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240314.l1O3ERXV016851@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xterm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226660 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE AssignedTo|mlichvar at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:14 EST ------- Per the new official review guidelines I am going to reassign this to me (reviewer) and set it to closed/rawhide, since it's fixed there. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:15:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:15:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225239] Merge Review: adjtimex In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240315.l1O3FNR6016907@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adjtimex https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225239 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE AssignedTo|mlichvar at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:15 EST ------- Per the new offical review guidelines I am going to reassign this to me (the reviewer) and set it closed/rawhide, since the changes are already there. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:16:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:16:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226513] Merge Review: units In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240316.l1O3Gps0016985@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: units https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226513 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|harald at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |needinfo?(harald at redhat.com) | |, fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:16 EST ------- Resetting flags and such per the new offical review guidelines. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:18:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:18:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226307] Merge Review: postfix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240318.l1O3Iv1n017108@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: postfix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226307 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|twoerner at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |needinfo?(twoerner at redhat.co | |m), fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:18 EST ------- Resetting flags and such per the new offical review guidelines: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:20:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:20:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225878] Merge Review: gzip In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240320.l1O3KwJT017223@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gzip https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225878 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE AssignedTo|varekova at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:20 EST ------- Per the new official review guidelines, I am going to reassign this to me (the reviewer) and close it rawhide (since the changes are already available there). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:22:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:22:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226105] Merge Review: logwatch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240322.l1O3Mn9t017333@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: logwatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226105 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE AssignedTo|varekova at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:22 EST ------- Per the new offical review guidelines, I am reassigning this to me (the reviewer) and closing it rawhide (since the changes are already available there). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:24:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:24:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226475] Merge Review: SysVinit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240324.l1O3OTjs017431@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: SysVinit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226475 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|notting at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:24 EST ------- Per the new offical review guidelines, I am reassigning to me (the reviewer). I will leave this open until it's imported over. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:25:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:25:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226437] Merge Review: strace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240325.l1O3PXD1017510@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: strace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226437 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|roland at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |needinfo?(roland at redhat.com) | |, fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:25 EST ------- Resetting flags and such per the new offical review guidelines. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:27:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:27:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240327.l1O3RrXb017644@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|pvrabec at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag| |needinfo?(pvrabec at redhat.com | |) ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:27 EST ------- Per the new review guidelines I am reassigning to me (reviewer). Please close this rawhide once you have made the change from comment #12 and pushed it out to rawhide/devel. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:29:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:29:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226377] Merge Review: rpm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240329.l1O3TPNw017746@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: rpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226377 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|pnasrat at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |needinfo?(pnasrat at redhat.com | |), fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:29 EST ------- Per the new review guidelines, resetting flags and such: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:37:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225236] Merge Review: acl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240337.l1O3b63a018152@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225236 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|twoerner at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+, | |needinfo?(twoerner at redhat.co | |m) ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:36 EST ------- In reply to commet #3: My understanding is that when you have post/postun with -p /sbin/ldconfig, since that tells rpm to run that instead of a shell command that it correctly adds the dependency for that command. Still, it doesn't hurt to have it in there. Everything else looks to be fixed from what I can see, so this package is APPROVED. Feel free to close this rawhide once it's been pushed out and tested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 03:59:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240359.l1O3xomO019287@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|sgrubb at redhat.com |kevin at tummy.com CC| |toshio at tiki-lounge.com Flag| |needinfo?(sgrubb at redhat.com) ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-23 22:59 EST ------- Thanks Steve. Any word from IBM about them distributing the source via sourceforge? Not sure what else to do here, since we really should be able to verify the upstream source. :( I'm going to CC toshio on this bug to see if he has any ideas on how we can meet the guidelines here. I'm also going to move the assigned and such around per the new offical review guidelines. More info at: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 06:37:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:37:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240637.l1O6bc7e025370@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From paskalis at di.uoa.gr 2007-02-24 01:37 EST ------- Another thing: Please consider adding %{?dist} in Release to make things easier for updates between different releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 07:42:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:42:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240742.l1O7g5X3027134@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-24 02:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #20) > It would be nice if someone could get this working with Fedora Then help reviewing (even if you are not a contributor yet). This is not a full review, but there are some obvious things that need to be fixed: - The files Source1: noXgl Source2: README.Fedora need a xorg-x11-server-Xgl- prefix and get renamed to their final names during install (that's done already), as other source packages that people might install in parallel could contain files with the same filenames - this # remove uneeded files needs a more verbose comment -- why are all of those unneeded (it's obvious for the .la files, but not for the rest)? - the %post script looks just crazy -- sorry, but such things are frowned upon and should be avoided as much as possible. They might be needed in some very rare situations, but then they need a comment. I don't think they are needed here - This %defattr(-, root, root) should be %defattr(-, root, root, -) - and how does one check out the snapshot to check that the code actually matches upstream? Needs a comment, too. (/me curses stupid upstream projects that have no proper release scheme) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 08:55:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 03:55:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225290] Merge Review: attr In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702240855.l1O8tai2029874@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: attr https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225290 dan at danny.cz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|twoerner at redhat.com |dan at danny.cz Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-24 03:55 EST ------- You should remove the explicit Requires(post + postun), because they are found automagically from the %post(+un) scripts. Sorry, when it wasn't clear from the review. With this issue fixed, package will be APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 10:28:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:28:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241028.l1OASRi2005093@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: - |Review Request: - | |chmlib and gecko> ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-24 05:28 EST ------- Could you please translate the content of the spec file in English? For now I get: %description ?????? Gtk2+ ??? CHM ?????????????????? ???????????? * ????????? chm ?????????????????????ChmSee ???????????? ?????? chm ???????????????????????? html ?????????????????? ??????????????????????????? $HOME/.chmsee/bookshelf Thank you -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 10:33:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:33:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241033.l1OAXORB005476@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 10:39:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229651] Review Request: Democracy - A internet TV video player In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241039.l1OAdqQp006176@bugzilla.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: Democracy - A internet TV video player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229651 tscherf at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From tscherf at redhat.com 2007-02-24 05:39 EST ------- I corrected the doc installation style. updated package (0.9.5.1-3) is now in devel and fc6 branch available. will close here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 10:50:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:50:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225809] Merge Review: gmp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241050.l1OAokA8007271@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: gmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225809 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-24 05:50 EST ------- [ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] in %install and %clean should be removed According to upstream (http://www.swox.com/gmp/), the most current version is 4.2.1, while the packaged version is 4.1.4. At least a note explaining the reason for not upgrading should be included in the spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 11:14:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 06:14:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241114.l1OBEPxR008551@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-24 06:14 EST ------- Hi all, Some remarks: -I agree that having a seperate -devel package for the header files is bogus -But I think that a -src subpackages containing the libc sources would be a good idea, as normally these aren't needed for sdcc to function, or am I missing something here? As also said on the mailinglist I like the current spec, in general it looks good. So I would like to review this and thus actually get it into extras. However since the special nature of this and all the talk about other corss-compilers, I would like to suggest having 2 reviewers. What I have in mind is that I do a formal review and that Ralf looks over my shoulder, then when I approve this package, Ralf reviews it too (which should be a no-op) when Ralf then approves it too he sets fedora-review to + and the CVS procedure can be started. Does this sound like a plan? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 11:15:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 06:15:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241115.l1OBFHn9008603@bugzilla.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: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-24 06:15 EST ------- The value you have selected for %{version} is a bit incorrect. Please read in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines the sections on "Non-Numeric Version in Release" and most specifically "Pre-Release packages". The schema you have used will fail to properly upgrade to a newer, stable (non-svn) version of the software. Also, when using sources obtained from a cvs/svn repository, you should document the method to be used by an independent tester in order to recreate the same %source as you have used. In this particular case you could for instance include the instructions from http://test.kernel.org/autotest/QuickStart and timestamp them, so as to make sure a tester will retrieve the same version as the one you have included. The last line in %files is %{_libdir}/conmux/* This makes the package architecture-dependent (so it cannot be a -noarch). More then that, build fails on x86_64 with the following error: RPM build errors:Processing files: conmux-svn.484-1.fc6 error: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/conmux-svn.484-1.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/lib64/conmux/* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 11:18:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 06:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241118.l1OBIiJN008688@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 06:18 EST ------- You can keep the description in another language, but you should tag it with the appropriate language code. gnochm (that I maintain) already owns /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/application-x-chm.png /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-chm.png What do you propose? I guess that the best would be to have this added to gnome themes. In the mean time I don't see any good solution. It seems that we will need a separate package that holds only those files. This package could be either a subpackage of gnochm or of chmsee. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 12:12:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:12:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208737] Review Request: ivman - Generic handler for HAL events In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241212.l1OCCnZQ009988@bugzilla.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: ivman - Generic handler for HAL events https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208737 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 07:12 EST ------- I have updated to 0.6.14 in cvs, but it doesn't solve that issue. There is a bad new, there could be a license issue. Indeed it is possible that the initial author used GPL code and changed it to QPL. The current maintainer added a double licensing under the GPL, but he couldn't reach all the authors... I had a discussion with the maintainer, he wasn't really happy with the ivman design, and he doesn't want to maintain ivman anymore. Finally I did something similar with ivman that I called halevt: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/halevt.html Given the current situation (no system config file, maintainer not interested anymore, license issue, I did a replacement) I am willing to orphan ivman and never build it... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 12:44:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:44:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241244.l1OCiXd4010849@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|karsten at redhat.com |pertusus at free.fr Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 07:44 EST ------- I have checked that source is upstream source, but it doesn't seems to be the case. The checksum, size, and timestamp are different. I reassign to me since it seems to be what should be done in the new version of the review process. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 12:53:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:53:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225298] Merge Review: automake14 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241253.l1OCrCdO011335@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake14 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225298 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 07:53 EST ------- I have checked that source match upstream, however the tarball timestamp isn't the same, this should be fixed. I am not sure that it can be easily done now that the tarball is in the look-aside cache, though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 12:58:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:58:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241258.l1OCwOqT011642@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 07:58 EST ------- Source match upstream, but the tarball timestamp isn't the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 13:21:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:21:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241321.l1ODLae5012434@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 08:21 EST ------- the source match upstream, but the timestamp is not the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 14:20:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:20:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 211763] Review Request: jikes - Java source to bytecode compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241420.l1OEKpSG016082@bugzilla.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: jikes - Java source to bytecode compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211763 ------- Additional Comments From gemi at bluewin.ch 2007-02-24 09:20 EST ------- I would say the one from CVS, since it contains some patches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 14:30:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:30:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241430.l1OEU1Nv016425@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-24 09:30 EST ------- Why don't make chmsee conflicts with gnochm for now, so yum could prompt before download? Adding chm mime-type to gnome themes is too slow to happen. Besides that, from my point of view chmsee is better than gnochm so it worth a push. Thanks. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee-1.0.0-0.5.beta.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 14:30:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:30:25 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241430.l1OEUPjs016458@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-24 09:30 EST ------- http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2200-firmware/ipw2200-firmware-3.0-6.src.rpm http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2200-firmware/ipw2200-firmware.spec * Sat Feb 24 2007 Matthias Saou 3.0-6 - Fix group and license tags. - Add (partially useful) exclusivearch. - Quiet %%setup. Regarding the LICENSE symlink, it's because the one inside /lib/firmware is mandatory, but not tagged as %doc, and will always be there, whereas the %doc symlink could be excluded by --nodocs installs. I have no real preference, it could be a full copy, but it would be kind of useless to have the license content twice. About the dist tag, it's clearly not needed since this package will be hardlinked against various Fedora releases. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 14:36:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:36:02 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217350=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2100-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2100_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241436.l1OEa281016634@bugzilla.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: ipw2100-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2100 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217350 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-24 09:36 EST ------- http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2100-firmware/ipw2100-firmware-1.3-6.src.rpm http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2100-firmware/ipw2100-firmware.spec * Sat Feb 24 2007 Matthias Saou 1.3-6 - Fix group and license tags. - Add (partially useful) exclusivearch. - Quiet %%setup. About the LICENSE and the dist tag, see #217351. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 14:43:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:43:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241443.l1OEhqWd016920@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-24 09:43 EST ------- update: Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-8.src.rpm *mock fedora-devel builds it fine. *rpmlint complain nothing. include my fixes by the review: (In reply to comment #42) > Well, for 1.4.0-7.fc7: > > * BuildRequires > - mockbuild log says: > ------------------------------------------------------- > checking for Xerces C++... disabled > ------------------------------------------------------- > Can this be enabled by xerces-c-devel? yes. enabled. (lots of stupid hardcoded paths, so workaround configure script) > > * User dependent rebuild condition? > - mockbuild log says: > ------------------------------------------------------- > Writing > /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/Geo/GDAL/Const/.packlist > Appending installation info to > /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/perllocal.pod > /bin/sh: /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/perllocal.pod: Permission > denied > make[3]: [doc_site_install] Error 1 (ignored) > make[3]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gdal-1.4.0/swig/perl' > make -f Makefile_Geo__OGR install > ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, this can be ignored for mockbuild, however, is this > dangerous on rebuilding this package as root? busted away into > /dev/null the generation of those files. > > * BuildRoot > - BuildRoot does not follow current Fedora guideline > (please check "Build root tag" section of > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines) fixed. i apologise for this, its elementary thing :-( > * Header files location > - Well, I think all the header files in -devel package should > be hidded under %{_includedir}/%{name} to avoid namespace > conflict. moved. > - And I suggest to fix %{_bindir}/gdal-config accordingly. > - By the way what does "CONFIG_DEP_LIBS" in gdal-config mean? dont know, but can say _sure_ that grass use it ;-) ! (fixed other minor nits with it, so that long paths looks coherently now) > * Directory structure > - Well, > --------------------------------------------------------- > # move python in the right path > mv %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/*.py %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/gdal > cp -p pymod/samples/*.py %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/gdal > --------------------------------------------------------- > Just explain why putting these python scripts under %{_bindir} > is not right? 1) ok. i leave in bindir those in -python package. 2) but samples/* moved (-x mode) in docs section of -python package. > > * .la files > - The following files are installed. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/_gdalmodule.la > ---------------------------------------------------------- excluded. > * Redundant dependency > - Currently the following explicit dependency are rather > redundant. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Requires: python >= 2.4 > Requires: perl >= 5.8 > ---------------------------------------------------------- removed those. obviously unnessesary. > Check for documentation files and source files may take more > time... Included more docs, i think _all_ posible of tham. Olso included some autogenerated pdf flavors but only from folders where tetex pdf make not crash ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 14:51:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 09:51:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241451.l1OEpFLf017129@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-24 09:51 EST ------- > gnochm (that I maintain) already owns > /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/application-x-chm.png > /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-chm.png > > What do you propose? I guess that the best would be to have this added > to gnome themes. In the mean time I don't see any good solution. > It seems that we will need a separate package that holds only those files. > This package could be either a subpackage of gnochm or of chmsee. Well, I don't know any of the gnome-icon-theme maintainers, could you please contact them? If we share/depend on a common package, you see, I am not a extras contributor yet, I'll just follow your decision,make chmsee depends on your subpackage. BTW, Sorry for my rude in the last comment, but please give chmsee a try. I like their work! :) Regards. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:06:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:06:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241506.l1OF6Wbd017709@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:06:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:06:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229477] Review Request: xblast-data - Data files for the game xblast In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241506.l1OF6bih017740@bugzilla.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: xblast-data - Data files for the game xblast https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229477 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:06:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:06:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241506.l1OF6x6w017797@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:25:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:25:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241525.l1OFPM4J018550@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 10:25 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Why don't make chmsee conflicts with gnochm for now, so yum could prompt before > download? That's wrong. There should be no conflict in fedora except if there is a good reason. Having an icon in common is not a good reason. > Adding chm mime-type to gnome themes is too slow to happen. Indeed, we must find a short term solution. > Besides > that, from my point of view chmsee is better than gnochm so it worth a push. Thanks. Whether chmsee is better than gnochm or not is not relevant. Both should be in fedora and installable in parallel. The fact that they both handle the same mimetype is also not an issue at all. (xchm and kchmviewer also handle the chm mimetype). chmsee don't seem to show the index? I'd like to see chmsee in fedora too. After some thinking, I think I found a solution: use the same file for /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-chm.png for both packages. That way they may coexist nicely. Does that looks good to you? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:26:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:26:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241526.l1OFQqOt018609@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 10:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Well, I don't know any of the gnome-icon-theme maintainers, could you please > contact them? I don't know them either... (I don't use gnome, but fluxbox or icewm)... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:30:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:30:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] New: Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer 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=229927 Summary: Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/mecab.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/mecab-0.94-0.1.pre2.fc7.src.rpm Mockbuild log on FC-devel i386: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/LOGS/MOCK-mecab.log Description: MeCab is a open source morphological analyzer which uses CRF (Conditional Random Fields) as the estimation of parameters. rpmlint on binary rpms: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. E: mecab no-binary 2. W: mecab no-documentation 3. W: mecab-base conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/mecabrc 4. W: mecab-devel no-dependency-on mecab 5. W: mecab-devel no-documentation ----------------------------------------------------- 1. mecab binary rpm is a dummy package which pulls mecab-base and mecab-dic (I will sumbit later) so actually mecab rpm is empty. * mecab requires mecab-base and mecab-dic * mecab-dic requires mecab-base and mecab-devel to rebuild 3. This file is expected to be overwritten by mecab-dic package so I will not mark this file as noreplace. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:34:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:34:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229929] New: Review Request: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab 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=229929 Summary: Review Request: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/mecab-jumandic.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/mecab-jumandic-5.1.20051121-1.fc7.src.rpm Mockbuild log on FC-devel i386: http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/LOGS/MOCK-mecab-jumandic.log Description: MeCab JUMAN is a dictionary for MeCab using CRF estimation based on Kyoto corpus. rpmlint on binary rpm: --------------------------------------------- E: mecab-jumandic no-binary E: mecab-jumandic only-non-binary-in-usr-lib --------------------------------------------- Well, no executable binaries are installed, but the installed data is compiled by arch-dependent binaries (in mecab: bug 229927) and the created data are arch-dependent. This package depends on mecab (bug 229927) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:34:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:34:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229929] Review Request: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241534.l1OFYrIm018920@bugzilla.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: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229929 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |229927 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:35:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:35:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241535.l1OFZ3EJ018938@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |229929 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:37:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:37:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241537.l1OFbWof019074@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-24 10:37 EST ------- I will review this later. By the way I will appreciate it if you would review my mecab related review request (bug 229927 and bug 229929). Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 15:53:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:53:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241553.l1OFrgrZ019519@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 10:53 EST ------- Issues: * the openssl-devel buildrequires is a bit weird. Where does it comes from? * In general it is not usefull to have the package name in the summary, all the tools should already show it * desktop-file-utils shared-mime-info should not be in Requires(pre) Requires(post) as explained on the past scripts snippets page * However desktop-file-utils should be a BuildRequires. * --vendor should be fedora and not gnome. * --add-category Utility seems to be unusefull to me since it is already in the desktop file. Suggestions: * I suggest removing Application category in the patch and not on the command line * I suggest calling the patch along chmsee-1.0.0-desktop-mimetype.patch * I suggest putting the chmsee-icon.png in /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps call it chmsee.png and adapt the desktop file accordingly. * snippet for icon theme update should be used (for gnome theme instead of hicolor, or both if you follow my suggestion above), see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda * %description is a bit terse, especially compared with the zh_CN one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 16:13:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:13:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229930] New: Review Request: thunar-volman - Automatic management of removable drives and media for the Thunar file manager 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=229930 Summary: Review Request: thunar-volman - Automatic management of removable drives and media for the Thunar file manager Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: fedora at christoph-wickert.de QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SPECS/thunar-volman.spec SRPM URL: http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SRPMS/thunar-volman-0.1.2-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: The Thunar Volume Manager is an extension for the Thunar file manager, which enables automatic management of removable drives and media. For example, if thunar-volman is installed and configured properly, and you plug in your digital camera, it will automatically launch your preferred photo application and import the new pictures from the camera into your photo collection. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 16:18:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:18:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241618.l1OGIoOI020177@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 11:18 EST ------- * devel package should require Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} but should not require %{name}-tcl. * the license issues have been solved, but the package cannot be accepted as is. Indeed the code copyrighted by the book editor is still in the srpm. I would have accepted similar issue if the license issue was between, say 2 authors of the software unknowingly using incompatible licenses. But here there is a third party which may sue fedora if we include that code, I think that is a risk we shouldn't take. To avoid that issue, you can either - use a release that doesn't contain the problematic code - or modify sources prior from doing the srpm by removing the problematic code. In that case you should provide a script that allows to recreate the tarball you ship with the original tarball. You can have a look at what I did for grads or the cernlib if you want examples. I don't see any other issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 16:23:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:23:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229930] Review Request: thunar-volman - Automatic management of removable drives and media for the Thunar file manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241623.l1OGNV1u020381@bugzilla.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: thunar-volman - Automatic management of removable drives and media for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229930 fedora at christoph-wickert.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin at tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO| |225083 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From fedora at christoph-wickert.de 2007-02-24 11:23 EST ------- Sorry for the delay. >From a packager's point of view the package looks good to me, but the program itself is not working reliable here. I often have problems unmounting devices, but as I see the same problems in Gnome I'm not sure where the problem is (think it's deeper in Hal/dbus in connection with SELinux) Please test this package carefully, I need more feedback. Also I'm not sure about the name: Rename the package to thunar-volman-plugin for consistency? Another question is whether it's correct to install thunar-volman to %{_bindir}. IMO it should be in %{_libexecdir}, but this is something I have to talk about with upstream first. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 16:37:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:37:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241637.l1OGbPhe020982@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-24 11:37 EST ------- Yes. i thinked that it can be an issue. solution: Ok, within 1 hour i go release 3.2.0beta tarball, anyway this was approved by Frank the maintainer ;-) It will olso contain a fix of malloc by google, i defenatly give a shot for google's fix proposal, than i pack 3.2.0 ;-) /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 16:59:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:59:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229930] Review Request: thunar-volman - Automatic management of removable drives and media for the Thunar file manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241659.l1OGxR9B022347@bugzilla.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: thunar-volman - Automatic management of removable drives and media for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229930 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-24 11:59 EST ------- >Also I'm not sure about the name: Rename the package to thunar-volman-plugin for >consistency? Yes >Another question is whether it's correct to install thunar-volman to %{_bindir}. >IMO it should be in %{_libexecdir}, but this is something I have to talk about >with upstream first. I think so -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 17:11:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:11:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241711.l1OHBpgi022985@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-24 12:11 EST ------- Well, A. First for xblast-2.10.4-1: * File dependency - Writing the package which provides the file is recommended expect you have somewhat strong reason to write file dependency (for vera font). Please check: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FileDeps (This is a draft) * Source URL - Please use http://downloads.sourceforge.net//XXXX.tar.gz if it is possible. Please check: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl (This is a draft). - Please specify the URL of xblast.png if possible. * Timestamps ---------------------------------------------------------- install -m 755 %{SOURCE3} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/%{name} ---------------------------------------------------------- - This is only a wrapper script and keeping timestamp (i.e. install -p) is recommended. * Documentation - Perhaps the following files can be used. ---------------------------------------------------------- ./xblast.man ---------------------------------------------------------- * Functionality - xblast-x11 cannot be launched for me. ---------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1 at localhost xblast]$ xblast-x11 could not load font 24 could not load font 18 could not load font 14 X Error of failed request: BadFont (invalid Font parameter) Major opcode of failed request: 56 (X_ChangeGC) Resource id in failed request: 0x800010 Serial number of failed request: 519 Current serial number in output stream: 541 ----------------------------------------------------------- * Directory/file ownership - Well as the build log says: ----------------------------------------------------------- -DGAME_DATADIR=\"/usr/share/xblast\" ----------------------------------------------------------- I think that %{_datadir}/xblast should be owned by xblast-common, not by xblast-data because xblast requires that the files are installed under %{_datadir}/xblast. - And currently the location of gettext mo files are not correct because build log says: ----------------------------------------------------------- -DLOCALEDIR=\"/usr/share/xblast/locale\" ----------------------------------------------------------- This should be moved to %{_datadir}/locale (well, some messages are corrupted on both fr_FR and de_DE, perhaps due to ISO-8859 style vs UTF-8 style). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 17:15:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:15:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241715.l1OHFeWI023196@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-24 12:15 EST ------- I hope I can review -8 by tomorrow... (EST + 14h) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 17:19:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:19:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229123] Review Request: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241719.l1OHJhMe023427@bugzilla.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: yum-arch - Extract headers from rpm in a old yum repository https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229123 Fedora at FamilleCollet.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 17:31:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:31:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229477] Review Request: xblast-data - Data files for the game xblast In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241731.l1OHVs9U024563@bugzilla.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: xblast-data - Data files for the game xblast https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229477 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-24 12:31 EST ------- B. For xdata-2.10.0-1: * Source URL - Please specify this. * Directory/file ownership - For /usr/share/xblast, please check my comments on xblast review request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 17:53:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241753.l1OHrGMi025409@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-24 12:53 EST ------- http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/x2vnc-1.7.2-3.src.rpm http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/x2vnc.spec Changes made. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 17:55:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:55:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225288] Merge Review: at In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241755.l1OHtL3R025468@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 mastahnke at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(mastahnke at gmail.co| |m) | ------- Additional Comments From mastahnke at gmail.com 2007-02-24 12:55 EST ------- Marcela Maslanova: Do you still need more info? I had a few people IRC look over the review to help provide you with the information I thought you were requesting. Let me know if you need more from me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 17:55:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:55:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241755.l1OHtt4R025496@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-24 12:55 EST ------- Unfortunately the source thing is really problematic for me and I suspect many others; it's pretty much completely antithetical to the goal of Fedora to track upstream as much as possible. Currently we have an unreproducible tarball and 17 patches that taken together are larger than the source itself. I understand that it would be truly difficult to rebase all of these patches, so I don't really know what should happen here. Perhaps we need a few volunteers to work on the problem. Or perhaps switching to one of the forked upstream projects would be better, especially if they support ipv6. But I would be really uncomfortable about putting my "approved" stamp on this package without having some public discussion on the issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 17:57:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:57:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241757.l1OHvmpS025561@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-24 12:57 EST ------- updated from mainstream. Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.2.0.beta1-1.src.rpm ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 18:38:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241838.l1OIcWnL027099@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 13:38 EST ------- The version-release is wrong. It should be along Version: 3.2.0 Release: 0.1.beta1 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 18:43:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:43:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241843.l1OIhLTk027267@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 13:43 EST ------- Also * devel package should require Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} but should not require %{name}-tcl. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 18:57:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:57:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241857.l1OIvKr3027704@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-24 13:57 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > I will review this later. > By the way I will appreciate it if you would review my > mecab related review request (bug 229927 and bug 229929). > Thanks! Well me reviewing some packages in return is only fare, so sure I'll take a stab. But tomorrow I'm going to fosdem 2007 in Brussels, so don't expect a full review this weekend. Probably somewhere next week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:01:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:01:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241901.l1OJ1DXd027810@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-24 14:01 EST ------- updated. Spec: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi.spec SRPMS: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/ogdi-3.2.0-0.2.beta1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:12:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:12:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241912.l1OJCO4r028484@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147831|0 |1 is obsolete| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:13:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:13:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241913.l1OJD9hR028529@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #147834|0 |1 is obsolete| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:15:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:15:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241915.l1OJFEVS028609@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |163778, 177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:21:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:21:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241921.l1OJLFYo029677@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 14:21 EST ------- in main package %files, there is no need of * in %exclude %{_libdir}/%{name}/liblodbc.so* Otherwise * rpmlint output ignorable W: ogdi-odbc no-documentation W: ogdi-tcl no-documentation * follow packaging and naming guidelines * license acceptable, with a license file summarizing the conditions for the source files * sane provides (I consider those .so provides bogus, but that's common) Provides: libadrg.so libdtcanada.so libdted.so libdtusa.so libgdal.so libogdi.so.3 libremote.so librpf.so libskeleton.so libvrf.so Provides: liblodbc.so Provides: libecs_tcl.so * match upstream: 193da3f154985d37bb5aaa886e78f650 ogdi-3.2.0.beta1.tar.gz 029a8cdcd36bee73df92196ee769040e ogdi.pdf * library packaged rightly (no .la, devel stuff in -devel, right Requires for -devel) * %files section right APPROVED The source file timestamps are not the same than what I get with spectool -g. I get Feb 24 18:48 ogdi-3.2.0.beta1.tar.gz Nov 3 2000 ogdi.pdf while in the SRPM, there is Feb 24 19:00 ../SOURCES/ogdi-3.2.0.beta1.tar.gz Nov 27 2003 ../SOURCES/ogdi.pdf Do you need to be sponsored? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:21:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241921.l1OJLwHQ029839@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-24 14:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Well, > > A. First for xblast-2.10.4-1: > > * File dependency > - Writing the package which provides the file is recommended > expect you have somewhat strong reason to write file dependency > (for vera font). Please check: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FileDeps > (This is a draft) > Fonts have been known to move from one location to another as packaging insights surrounding fonts change, since xblast opens the font through an absolute patch I want xblast to break when this happens. > * Source URL > - Please use http://downloads.sourceforge.net//XXXX.tar.gz > if it is possible. Please check: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl > (This is a draft). This Draft is clearly written by someone with not so much sourceforge experience, downloads.sourceforge.net (or dl.sf.net which is a shorter alias but otherwise exactly the same) will do a dumb redirect to a mirror, I say a dumb redirect as it will take the file location after the hostname as is without any checking and then postfix this to the choosen mirrors hostname to get the URL to redirect to. Now most mirrors will work fine with dl.sf.net/%{name}/xxx, but some mirrors will only work with dl.sf.net/sourceforge/%{name}/xxx, notice that this longer version will also work on mirrors which accept dl.sf.net/%{name}/xxx, as they seem to have a symlink to / called sourceforge :) Thus the draft is wrong. I've added a comment to this extend to the draft. > - Please specify the URL of xblast.png if possible. > I took this from a suse srom, so no URL I'm afraid. > * Timestamps > ---------------------------------------------------------- > install -m 755 %{SOURCE3} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}/%{name} > ---------------------------------------------------------- > - This is only a wrapper script and keeping timestamp > (i.e. install -p) is recommended. > I will fix this as soon as the other points are clear. > * Documentation > - Perhaps the following files can be used. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ./xblast.man > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Good catch, it needs some work amongst others the trademark bomberman name must be stripped from it, but its salvegable :) I will fix this as soon as the other points are clear. > * Functionality > - xblast-x11 cannot be launched for me. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > [tasaka1 at localhost xblast]$ xblast-x11 > could not load font 24 > could not load font 18 > could not load font 14 > X Error of failed request: BadFont (invalid Font parameter) > Major opcode of failed request: 56 (X_ChangeGC) > Resource id in failed request: 0x800010 > Serial number of failed request: 519 > Current serial number in output stream: 541 > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Looks like it will need a dep on some not by default installed X11 fonts which I have installed and you don't. Can you try installing "xorg-x11-fonts-misc" ? > * Directory/file ownership > - Well as the build log says: > ----------------------------------------------------------- > -DGAME_DATADIR=\"/usr/share/xblast\" > ----------------------------------------------------------- > I think that %{_datadir}/xblast should be owned by > xblast-common, not by xblast-data because xblast requires > that the files are installed under %{_datadir}/xblast. > Erm, why xblast and xblast-x11 need files from under this dir, but they place no files there themselves, since they need the files they require xblast-data, which has the files and does the dir. Whats the use of owning a dir you don't put files in? Actually by doing things that way, combined with the circular deps this has chances are that the directory will not be removed, because xblast-data could be removed after xblast-data at which moment it will not be empty. > - And currently the location of gettext mo files are > not correct because build log says: > ----------------------------------------------------------- > -DLOCALEDIR=\"/usr/share/xblast/locale\" > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This should be moved to %{_datadir}/locale (well, some > messages are corrupted on both fr_FR and de_DE, perhaps > due to ISO-8859 style vs UTF-8 style). I will fix the location as soon as the other points are clear. And I'll look into the encodings, but that shouldn't be a problem as .po /.mo files should have the encoding specified in their header and on the fly conversion will be done by gettext when nescesarry. Did you see these problems with xblast-sdl, xblast-x11 or both? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:32:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:32:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241932.l1OJWwpj031317@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-24 14:32 EST ------- reuploaded the same package with correct timestamp. yes i need. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:48:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:48:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241948.l1OJm45m032093@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:53:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:53:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241953.l1OJrPCf032242@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:57:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:57:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241957.l1OJvaGl032351@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-24 14:57 EST ------- updated. Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.3-6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 19:58:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:58:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702241958.l1OJwL6L032374@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-24 14:58 EST ------- (In reply to comment #14) > updated. > Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass.spec > SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.3-6.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.1-6.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 21:12:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:12:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702242112.l1OLCf10002759@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-24 16:12 EST ------- I'll take that for a pre-review (I am not a sponsor so I cannot approve the package). For now, I have only seen a small inconsistency in %install ($RPM_BUILD_ROOT versus ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} in the rest of the spec) which by no means is anything else but an esthetic problem. The src package builds happily in mock and rpmlint has no complaints on any of the 4 (source, binary, devel, debuginfo) rpms I'll test the program Monday, after I get in touch with my colleagues who can speak Verilog. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 21:34:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:34:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702242134.l1OLYOoB003382@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-24 16:34 EST ------- One more thought, Now I haven't dug into the build process yet to look for myself... but for the static linking into the executable...are there specific compiler options which need to be used to ensure position independant-ness? Does -fPIE or -fPIC or something similiar need to be used? Does this matter at all? I bring it up, because it came up in a list discussion concerning the netcdf static libs. Not exactly the same situation, since you aren't shipping the static libs, but it made me wonder. -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 21:40:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:40:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702242140.l1OLeFEW003644@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami at redhat.com Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ ------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com 2007-02-24 16:40 EST ------- > but got the error "New Package CVS RequestYou tried to > request fedora-cvs. Only a sufficiently empowered user can make this change." > What am I supposed to do now? This means that you were not a member of the fedorabugs group. Is this now corrected? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 22:01:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:01:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702242201.l1OM18s2004394@bugzilla.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-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229257 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 22:42:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702242242.l1OMg4p4005721@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From alcapcom at gmail.com 2007-02-24 17:42 EST ------- > - The files > Source1: noXgl > Source2: README.Fedora > need a xorg-x11-server-Xgl- prefix and get renamed to their final names during > install (that's done already), as other source packages that people might > install in parallel could contain files with the same filenames fixed > - this > # remove uneeded files > needs a more verbose comment -- why are all of those unneeded (it's obvious for > the .la files, but not for the rest)? comment "these file are already provided by the Xorg package", is that enough? > - the %post script looks just crazy -- sorry, but such things are frowned upon > and should be avoided as much as possible. They might be needed in some very > rare situations, but then they need a comment. I don't think they are needed here Have move the launch of XGL to xsessions, but the problem is that it's necessary to add a .desktop file by WM and I am not sure is that well. Any other idea? > - This > %defattr(-, root, root) > should be > %defattr(-, root, root, -) fixed > - and how does one check out the snapshot to check that the code actually > matches upstream? Needs a comment, too. (/me curses stupid upstream projects > that have no proper release scheme) fixed The package is build for the moment but i work tomorrow, so i should push it after 9h pm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Feb 24 22:46:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:46:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229257] Review Request: perl-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702242246.l1OMkxuq005992@bugzilla.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-Math-Random-MT-Auto - Auto-seeded Mersenne Twister PRNGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229257 cweyl at alumni.drew.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu 2007-02-24 17:46 EST ------- Branched & built successfully. Thanks for the review! :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 00:44:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:44:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250044.l1P0i9S2009733@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-24 19:44 EST ------- Ok, I'll sponsor you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 01:58:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:58:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250158.l1P1welg011057@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-24 20:58 EST ------- I never requested to be a member of fedorabugs because these people are also allowed to approve packages, according to this page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors I don't think that I am skilled enough to make formal approvements, but since the membership is even needed to finish a normal review I requested the membership in the account system. The Role Status is "unapproved" at the moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 02:44:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228591] Review Request: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250244.l1P2i0mp012254@bugzilla.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: speedcrunch - a KDE power user calculator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228591 wolters.liste at gmx.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From wolters.liste at gmx.net 2007-02-24 21:43 EST ------- Builds in devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 03:51:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:51:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250351.l1P3p15k013630@bugzilla.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: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 ------- Additional Comments From snecklifter at gmail.com 2007-02-24 22:50 EST ------- I have created a snapshot package from subversion for feedback and testing. Things to note: -I have had to change the permissions on a few files whilst upstream gets them properly set in svn. -I have used sed make a one line change to remove a shebang and to strip dos characters from a userguide file There are still a large number of bugs outstanding at: https://launchpad.net/jokosher/+bugs You can download the rpm, source rpm, spec file and source from: www.iammetal.co.uk/jokosher Regards Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 05:35:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:35:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250535.l1P5ZrRR017838@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 bbbush.yuan at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: - |Review Request: Chmsee - a | |chmlib and gecko ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-25 00:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > Issues: > > * the openssl-devel buildrequires is a bit weird. Where does it > comes from? > chmsee works by extracting all files. Openssl is used to calculate md5 from filename. The md5sum will be used as a directory name, to hold files extracted from different CHM files. > * In general it is not usefull to have the package name in > the summary, all the tools should already show it > removed for default "Summary". rpmlint complains about "Summary not capitalized" for Summary(zh_CN) if there is no Capitalized "ChmSee". > * desktop-file-utils shared-mime-info should not be in Requires(pre) > Requires(post) as explained on the past scripts snippets page > removed. I thought they should be there but I haven't read those guidelines for a long time. > * However desktop-file-utils should be a BuildRequires. > thanks. > * --vendor should be fedora and not gnome. > changed. > * --add-category Utility seems to be unusefull to me since it is already > in the desktop file. > removed. > > Suggestions: > > * I suggest removing Application category in the patch and not on the > command line > > * I suggest calling the patch along > chmsee-1.0.0-desktop-mimetype.patch > renamed. > * I suggest putting the chmsee-icon.png in > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps > call it chmsee.png and adapt the desktop file accordingly. > done. > * snippet for icon theme update should be used (for gnome > theme instead of hicolor, or both if you follow my suggestion > above), see: > done. The app icon was in pixmaps directory so this was not needed. Moving it to hicolor seems to be a good idea. > > * %description is a bit terse, especially compared with the zh_CN > one. > check it :) Spec URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee-1.0.0-0.6.beta.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 05:43:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:43:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250543.l1P5hhgF018122@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From zhu at redhat.com 2007-02-25 00:43 EST ------- I think setuid is not a big problem, it is convenience from user's aspect, which just run and work fine. I think this can be the final version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 05:54:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 00:54:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250554.l1P5sYmH018290@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-25 00:54 EST ------- And I wonder why this issue blocks nothing. I remembered when I submitted this, it blocks FE_NEW 163776. Who should change its block/depend status? The status is always "NEW" and the assignment is always "nobody", why? Who could/will change them? Could you review my package and sponsor me, or should I find another one who will review it and sponsor me? or should I look for a third people to sponsor me? (/me confused somehow) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 06:03:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:03:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228969] Review Request: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250603.l1P63deu018490@bugzilla.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: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228969 bbbush.yuan at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bbbush.yuan at gmail.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora_requires_release_note | |-, fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 06:06:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:06:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250606.l1P664Tg018556@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 bbbush.yuan at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |163776 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 06:58:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 01:58:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228969] Review Request: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250658.l1P6w80r019474@bugzilla.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: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228969 bbbush.yuan at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora_requires_release_note| |- | ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-25 01:57 EST ------- == Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored == The blockers are listed below - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines. spec name should conform to package name: wxGlade - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. The website says: Starting from version 0.4, wxGlade requires wxPython >= 2.6 and Python >= 2.2. should not Requires(pre) or Requires(post) desktop-file-utils, but should BuildRequires it. BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %description has a blank comment? install icons to hicolors directory instead of pixmaps, and adjust your desktop file (Icon=wxGlade without file extension). This will make it better suit desktop theme changes. Remember to update icon cache if you do this. change your desktop file to remove "Application" category, leaving only "Development" - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). better remove the sed script, to source/patch file. Is there any guidelines for desktop files versioning? I mean, both the file name and the file content should contain a version number, then there would be a lot of maintaince work. But if using sed, the code will be less clear. - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. builds fine here on i386 - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. BuildRequires desktop-file-utils - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. please do this. - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. %defattr(-,root,root,-) - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. I don't know if re-define %name and %version and %release is a good idea. Why python source and compiled files are placed in /usr/share/ directory? I think they should be in /usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages. I have not install this package yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 07:54:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 02:54:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250754.l1P7s81p020261@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-25 02:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > I'll take that for a pre-review (I am not a sponsor so I cannot approve the > package). > For now, I have only seen a small inconsistency in %install ($RPM_BUILD_ROOT > versus ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} in the rest of the spec) which by no means is anything > else but an esthetic problem. The src package builds happily in mock and rpmlint > has no complaints on any of the 4 (source, binary, devel, debuginfo) rpms updated Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/iverilog.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/iverilog-20070123-2.src.rpm > I'll test the program Monday, after I get in touch with my colleagues who can speak Verilog. necessary ?! I succesuful run tests over an large openrisc core. Anyway this tool cannot be compared with industry comercial tools. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 09:55:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 04:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228969] Review Request: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702250955.l1P9tqb7019787@bugzilla.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: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228969 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 04:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > == Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored == Well, then don't assign this bug to yourself for now... Still you can do a pre-review for this review request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 10:07:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:07:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251007.l1PA7ATf020204@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-25 05:07 EST ------- I bet a beer that you wanted to say http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/iverilog-20070123-3.src.rpm. Visually seems fine. And yes, since I have a few dozens hardware engineers around, I prefer to have one of them test the program. And no, I do not expect it to replace Questa or VCS yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 10:19:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:19:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251019.l1PAJTrm020869@bugzilla.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: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 ------- Additional Comments From david at lovesunix.net 2007-02-25 05:19 EST ------- Doesn't really build on current Development: Traceback (most recent call last): File "setup.py", line 79, in targeturi = os.path.join(installdir, "share/gnome/", filepath) File "/usr/lib64/python2.5/posixpath.py", line 62, in join elif path == '' or path.endswith('/'): AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'endswith' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.94847 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.94847 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 10:56:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:56:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251056.l1PAuo8s023074@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-25 05:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > chmsee works by extracting all files. Openssl is used to calculate md5 from > filename. The md5sum will be used as a directory name, to hold files extracted > from different CHM files. Ok. > rpmlint complains about "Summary not capitalized" for Summary(zh_CN) if there is > no Capitalized "ChmSee". rpmlint is wrong in that case - and it is not strange, because the summary is in a non english (and even non latin) locale. > > * desktop-file-utils shared-mime-info should not be in Requires(pre) > > Requires(post) as explained on the past scripts snippets page > > > > removed. I thought they should be there but I haven't read those guidelines for > a long time. It has changed in FC-5 if I recall well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 11:08:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:08:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251108.l1PB8fTw023588@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-25 06:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > And I wonder why this issue blocks nothing. I remembered when I submitted this, > it blocks FE_NEW 163776. Who should change its block/depend status? I don't exactly know, since we are changing how things work. The blockers are not used anymore, instead flags are used. But things are not completely stabilized. > The status is always "NEW" and the assignment is always "nobody", why? Who > could/will change them? I could change it, but I don't' like to be assigned formally as a reviewer, except when there are blocking issues that I want to be solved. My practice is to comment on reviews, and when it is acceptable I do the formal review. That way it also leave the possibility for another reviewer that don't have the same ideas than me (on things that aren't hard policies) to accept the package. For example for this submission, Manuel may want to do some reviewing too, and I want to leave this open to him (even though he isn't a sponsor...) > Could you review my package and sponsor me, or should I find another one who > will review it and sponsor me? or should I look for a third people to sponsor > me? (/me confused somehow) I am a sponsor and I can sponsor you. This package needs to be approved, and I should also look at your activity around fedora. I have seen that you begun reviewing a package, I'll follow that, I'll look for you in mailing lists, on the net and so on. Other sponsors may also do the same. You can send me a private mail if you have tracks of your activity that would help me decide to sponsor you. There is also a page in the wiki http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 11:19:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:19:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251119.l1PBJhJK023871@bugzilla.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: jokosher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029 ------- Additional Comments From snecklifter at gmail.com 2007-02-25 06:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #53) > Doesn't really build on current Development: Okay, thanks for testing David. I'm currently using FC6, plan to move to F7 when T2 arrives so will take a look at this then. Regards Chris -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 12:14:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:14:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251214.l1PCE4Wa025012@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-25 07:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Okay, did some cleanup. thx > I did the same to all the driver packages I could, with the exception of a few > that really are arch-specific. [...] thx, looks a lot better. But I think I spotted a bug: xorg-x11-drv-i810 should be required on x86_64, too, as there are x86_64 compatible boards with intel graphic chipsets out there. > [...] > Which leaves us with: > > % rpmlint xorg-x11-drivers-7.2-2.fc7.src.rpm > W: xorg-x11-drivers no-url-tag > % rpmlint i686/xorg-x11-drivers-7.2-2.fc7.i686.rpm > W: xorg-x11-drivers no-url-tag > E: xorg-x11-drivers no-binary > W: xorg-x11-drivers no-documentation > Also I don't see the point in making a trivial doc payload, given > that it'd just be a repeat of the %description. I'd say it would be worth the trouble. Regarding the bugs: - Fixing Bug 199381 would be nice and shouldn't do any harm, even if those drivers are are not (yet) packaged in main Fedora -- but I don't consider this a blocker (sorry dgilmore -- I'm counting on ajax cooperation in this case). - Bug 198294 will be fixed in another package APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 12:16:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228969] Review Request: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251216.l1PCGioC025127@bugzilla.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: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228969 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-25 07:16 EST ------- updated : spec : ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/wxglade.spec SRPM : ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/wxglade-0.4.1-2.fc6.src.rpm * Sun Feb 25 2007 ZC Miao - 0.4.1-2 - install icon to hicolor directory - change name to wxglade - BuildRequires desktop-file-utils - remove Application category in desktop file - remove some macro redefination * Fri Feb 16 2007 ZC Miao - 0.4.1-2 - Add missing icons -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 12:25:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:25:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226640] Merge Review: xorg-x11-font-utils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251225.l1PCPt4L025441@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-font-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226640 fedora at leemhuis.info changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-25 07:25 EST ------- * "# FIXME: Include missing docs sometime" -- I agree fully :-) ; COPYING files should be included as doc, too * mkfontdir and mkfontscale contain the "This is a stub file. [...]" stuff as COPYING :-/ There are no license informations *at all* in mkfontdir * "#%dir %{_mandir}/man1x" -> similar lines are in quite a lot of xorg packages -- would be nice to get rid of them over time, as those packages should not own that dir and the comment is unneeded * font-util -> BSD, not MIT license; running out of time right now -- I'm unsure if that's okay in this case (e.g. mixing LGPL and GPL and declaring that mix GPL in the spec file is okay, but I'm unsure about BSD and MIT license) * would be nice to get the patch upstream to avoid we have to run autoconf * seems ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/individual/app/font-util-1.0.1.tar.bz2 does not exist * the md5sum of bdftopcf-1.0.0.tar.bz2 does not match upstream * Quoting %files {{{ %dir %{_datadir}/X11 %dir %{_datadir}/X11/fonts }}} -> quite some packages own those directories -- we should work towards a solution where only one package owns those (and the other important X11) directories * rpmlint rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-2.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-font-utils invalid-license MIT/X11 -> (besides the BSD stuff mentioned above) "MIT" afaics for the MIT stuff (then rpmlint won't complain) -- W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides %{pkgname} -> with %{version}-%{release} please W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides bdftopcf W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides fonttosfnt W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides mkfontdir W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides mkfontscale W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides bdftruncate W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides ucs2any -> it's better to have those with their versions, too, in case we ever want to split them out W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-font-utils W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86 -> is that still needed -- if yes, it will be better with version-number, in case we ever want to put some packages with those names out rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-2.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-font-utils invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above E: xorg-x11-font-utils obsolete-not-provided XFree86-font-utils E: xorg-x11-font-utils obsolete-not-provided XFree86 E: xorg-x11-font-utils obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-base-fonts E: xorg-x11-font-utils obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-tools -> well, would be nice to provide them, but is probably not that important anymore W: xorg-x11-font-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/fontutil.pc -> acceptable rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-font-utils-debuginfo-7.1-2.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-font-utils-debuginfo invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above Besides that: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. dist tag is present. build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) no shared libraries are present. package is not relocatable. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. %clean is present. no scriptlets present. code, not content. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. no headers. no pkgconfig files. no libtool .la droppings. not a GUI app. not a web app. no open bugs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 12:40:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:40:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251240.l1PCeVSP025917@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-25 07:40 EST ------- * %description is right (even a bit too long now ;-). It should be cut at about 80 columns. s/conviniently/conveniently/ s;Try to $HOME/.chmsee ;Try to remove $HOME/.chmsee; * I think that the chmsee-icon.png file should be kept in pixmaps, even though it is also in the theme directory. * in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}, / is unuseful. * you should keep timestamps when installing data files, adding -p to install call. * What about my proposal, using the same file for /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-chm.png It seems to me that the file used should be a file specific of the file type, not a file corresponding with an application. Therefore the file chmfile.png from gnochm seems a better candidate to me than chmsee-icon.png. As a side note, I don't like that much that icon file, I prefer the ones that are with xchm, I find them better looking, and there are different sizes (and they are installed in the hicolor mimetype theme). However for the gnome theme it seems to me that an icon from a gnome/gtk package is better. * Suggestion: use your real name in changelog -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 12:42:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:42:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223657] Review Request: PerceptualDiff - An image comparison utility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251242.l1PCgYnq026057@bugzilla.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: PerceptualDiff - An image comparison utility https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223657 cgtobi at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(cgtobi at gmail.com) | ------- Additional Comments From cgtobi at gmail.com 2007-02-25 07:42 EST ------- Exams are over and I moved to London. Now I just need to get a fedora machine up and running since the opensuse buildserver doesn't seem to do a good job for me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 12:47:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:47:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251247.l1PClVxa026392@bugzilla.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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 ------- Additional Comments From cgtobi at gmail.com 2007-02-25 07:47 EST ------- Exams are over and I moved to London. Now I just need to get a fedora machine up and running since the opensuse buildserver doesn't seem to do a good job for me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 13:30:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:30:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251330.l1PDU3WO028090@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-25 08:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > any ISO-8859-1 text should also be UTF-8 text. That's incorrect when thinking about bytes (which is the case here); the encodings are the same only for the first 128 characters (ie. ASCII). Beyond that, they differ, for example many common non-ASCII ISO-8859-1 characters are encoded as two bytes in UTF-8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8 > Moreover, the manpage is in ASCII, an even smaller subset of UTF-8. Is there > any reason for this conversion? This, however seems to be the case, and no conversion should be necessary. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 13:39:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:39:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251339.l1PDdikn028478@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 08:39 EST ------- deluge-0.4.90.2-1.fc7 seems no problem agaist fedora rawhide gail-1.17.0-1.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 13:45:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:45:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251345.l1PDjJ2Y028900@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From paskalis at di.uoa.gr 2007-02-25 08:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > any ISO-8859-1 text should also be UTF-8 text. > > That's incorrect when thinking about bytes (which is the case here); the > encodings are the same only for the first 128 characters (ie. ASCII). Beyond > that, they differ, for example many common non-ASCII ISO-8859-1 characters are > encoded as two bytes in UTF-8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8 Duh! I thought I checked it, but mixed again characters with encodings. Sorry about that. > > Moreover, the manpage is in ASCII, an even smaller subset of UTF-8. Is there > > any reason for this conversion? > > This, however seems to be the case, and no conversion should be necessary. I should stick to that only. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 14:11:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:11:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221015] Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251411.l1PEBK08030941@bugzilla.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: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |cgoorah at yahoo.com.au OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-25 09:11 EST ------- Ok, I'm sponsoring. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 14:11:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221015] Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251411.l1PEBwWl031054@bugzilla.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: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 14:22:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:22:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251422.l1PEMFKw031584@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-25 09:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > > I could change it, but I don't' like to be assigned formally as > a reviewer, except when there are blocking issues that I want to > be solved. My practice is to comment on reviews, and when it is I can understand about this. Being a mentor will makes one get upset very easily. I have another package in review and I didn't response to my sponsor quickly so I guess I may have offended him/her and he or she has given up giving more advice & directions. :( But having to wait for a long time before some one could formally review one's package will make the contributor upset, very easily, too. I was and am confused by those guidelines: some one just told me since I am not a sponsor, I should not assign the bug to myself when doing the review . (And the review guideline tells me if I am in the " fedorabugs" group then I could start to review packages, and the first step is to assign the bug to myself. Being a sponsored contributor? That means I should be in the "cvsextras" group, and it does not matter I think.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 14:26:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:26:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229930] Review Request: thunar-volman - Automatic management of removable drives and media for the Thunar file manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251426.l1PEQULh031732@bugzilla.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: thunar-volman - Automatic management of removable drives and media for the Thunar file manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229930 ------- Additional Comments From fedora at christoph-wickert.de 2007-02-25 09:26 EST ------- 1. I'm not sure if we really need to rename the package. On the one hand a strictly consistent naming scheme would be nice, on the other hand it might be _too_ strict. The naming guidelines only say that we need a parent like xfce4-*, but we don't need the *-plugin. thunar-volman also is the upstream name. 2. I think so too, so I patched thunar-volman to install to libexecdir, but this doesn't work as long as Thunar looks for the executable in path. This is something that needs to be changed in Thunar and requires more discussion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 14:32:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:32:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251432.l1PEWoSr031865@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 09:32 EST ------- Well, * x11 version problem ---------------------------------------------------------- [tasaka1 at localhost xblast]$ xblast-x11 could not load font 24 could not load font 18 could not load font 14 ----------------------------------------------------------- - turns out that this is because x11 version is not compiled with "-DMINI_XBLAST" (check x11_config.c). x11 version still requests vera font, however vera font is not in the font search path. BYW according to x11_config.c, x11 version requires some font from xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859???? (note: I think that these font packages are not so usual for non-American/European users like me). * gettext translation character corruption - well, x11 version does not use gettext, so the sentences are always English and have no problem. - some character corruption occurs on -sdl version (currently I created a link as /usr/share/xblast/locale -> ../locale) on both de_DE and fr_FR. * Directory ownership: > Actually by doing things that way, combined > with the circular deps this has chances are that > the directory will not be removed, because xblast-data > could be removed after xblast-data at which moment it will not be > empty. - Okay. I catched what you mean. You want to remove all packages related to xblast by "yum remove xblast", right? Your opinition is reasonable and for this I respect your choice. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 14:34:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:34:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251434.l1PEYHgV031897@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 09:34 EST ------- Oops... not BYW but BTW (by the way) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 14:38:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:38:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251438.l1PEcj4n032070@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 09:38 EST ------- Still no good... same as comment 13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 14:39:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:39:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251439.l1PEdiHq032125@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163776 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 14:55:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:55:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251455.l1PEtOIZ032558@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-25 09:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > * %description is right (even a bit too long now ;-). It should be > cut at about 80 columns. > s/conviniently/conveniently/ > s;Try to $HOME/.chmsee ;Try to remove $HOME/.chmsee; > corrected. thx. > * I think that the chmsee-icon.png file should be kept in pixmaps, even > though it is also in the theme directory. > ok. > * in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}, / is unuseful. > removed. > * you should keep timestamps when installing data files, adding > -p to install call. > done. > * What about my proposal, using the same file for > /usr/share/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-chm.png > > It seems to me that the file used should be a file specific of the > file type, not a file corresponding with an application. Therefore > the file chmfile.png from gnochm seems a better candidate to me than > chmsee-icon.png. > > As a side note, I don't like that much that icon file, I prefer the > ones that are with xchm, I find them better looking, and there are > different sizes (and they are installed in the hicolor mimetype > theme). However for the gnome theme it seems to me that an icon from > a gnome/gtk package is better. > I don't quite understand this. I said I will just follow your decision, and please just tell me, what I should do? Thanks! Spec URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee-1.0.0-0.7.beta.src.rpm About #13: I think the bug should always be assigned to some one, so the contributor will not be confused so much. Nothing more. :p -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 16:03:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:03:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251603.l1PG3eQ2002543@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 11:03 EST ------- Well, for -8: * rpmlint - some rpmlint complaint: ------------------------------------------------------- E: gdal-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/gdal-1.4.0/alg/gdal_tps.cpp W: gdal-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gdal-1.4.0/frmts/jpeg/gdalexif.h ------------------------------------------------------- perhaps permisson issue * python scripts in %{_bindir} - byte-compiled files are not needed and please %exclude them. ("Unnecessary Byte compilation" section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python ) * man files triage - Please "triage" man files according to the corresponding binaries. It seems that some man files should be installed in -python subpackage. * License - LGPL codes seem to be included -------------------------------------------------------- ./ogr/ogrsf_frmts/ili/iom/LICENSE.lgpl (and around this file) ./ogr/ogrsf_frmts/shape/LICENSE.LGPL (and around this file) ./pymod/gdal2xyz.py (and around this file) ./pymod/samples/histrep.py -------------------------------------------------------- - Note: not used for fedora package, however having different license: -------------------------------------------------------- ./swig/php/php_osr.h (and around this file) - PHP 2.02 -------------------------------------------------------- - Well, there are lots of "TO_RESOLVE" issues written on PROVENANCE.TXT. We can leave as it is expecting that upstream would solve these issues?? Especially, the license of the files under ./data is unclear. * ogdi - As ogdi passed the review, would you enable ogdi again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 16:09:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:09:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222964] Review Request: dayplanner - A simple time management program. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251609.l1PG924H002777@bugzilla.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: dayplanner - A simple time management program. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222964 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(johnny.d at freesurf. | |ch) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 11:09 EST ------- again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 16:12:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:12:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225500] Review Request: cycle - Calendar program for women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251612.l1PGCuTG002970@bugzilla.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: cycle - Calendar program for women https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225500 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 11:12 EST ------- What is the status of this review request? Currently this is assigned to nobody... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 16:23:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:23:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251623.l1PGNhZE003221@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 11:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19) > I think this can be the final version. This refers to my spec/srpm (comment 12)? If so, I changed the directories where the files are installed according to FHS and something else. conf: /usr/etc -> /etc data: /usr/lib -> /usr/share/ (check: zhcon-0.2.6-path-define.patch) So for this you have to write README.fedora for fedora specific issue so that the user of fedora version zhcon can find the files which are expected to be installed by zhcon correctly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 16:26:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:26:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208034] Review Request: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251626.l1PGQqPW003414@bugzilla.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: HippoDraw - Interactive and Python scriptable data analysis application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208034 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(paul_kunz at slac.sta | |nford.edu) ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 11:26 EST ------- ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 16:28:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:28:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 209468] Review Request: Sjitter - Another network performance tool... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251628.l1PGSKce003466@bugzilla.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: Sjitter - Another network performance tool... Alias: sjitter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209468 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 11:28 EST ------- ping again? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 17:50:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:50:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227669] Review Request: - In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251750.l1PHoU95007121@bugzilla.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: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227669 ------- Additional Comments From bagnara at cs.unipr.it 2007-02-25 12:50 EST ------- Thinking more about it, having a ppl-docs package seemed reasonable. The revised source RPM is http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-4.src.rpm This has been obtained from http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl.spec http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/ppl-0.9.tar.gz http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/releases/0.9/RedHat/FC6/ppl-0.9-docfiles.patch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 18:02:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:02:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225500] Review Request: cycle - Calendar program for women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251802.l1PI2oX4007603@bugzilla.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: cycle - Calendar program for women https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225500 mr.ecik at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mr.ecik at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com 2007-02-25 13:02 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > What is the status of this review request? > Currently this is assigned to nobody... Hmm, odd... I have approved this package and it ought to be closed as well, because package exists in repo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 18:14:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:14:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251814.l1PIE67t008048@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-25 13:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #32) > deluge-0.4.90.2-1.fc7 seems no problem agaist > fedora rawhide gail-1.17.0-1.fc7. Great news! Thanks for testing it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 18:32:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:32:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251832.l1PIW200008884@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From david at lovesunix.net 2007-02-25 13:32 EST ------- I hate to say it but 0.4.90.2 fails for me, it starts up just fine but you can't add torrents also the configuration from the older version isn't transitioned so you could imagine this happening: User opens Deluge 0.4.1 adds a bunch of stuff user then upgrades to 0.5b2 (for whatever reason, say Peter pushes an update or he upgrades to F7) User restarts deluge and voila all his torrents are gone, his configuration is screwed, he now hates Peter, Fedora and life. We would probably rather avoid that. Also when I built the rpm for 0.5b2 I got an x86_64 binary not a noarch like with 0.4.1 - any reason for the change? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 19:36:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:36:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221669] Review Request: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702251936.l1PJaFtO011954@bugzilla.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: Deluge - A Python BitTorrent client with support for UPnP and DHT Alias: deluge https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221669 ------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com 2007-02-25 14:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #34) > We would probably rather avoid that. Unfortunately, it seems to function mostly normally, but not show the torrents in the list. I'm trying to debug that now. > Also when I built the rpm for 0.5b2 I got an x86_64 binary not a noarch like > with 0.4.1 - any reason for the change? Yes. With 0.4.1, the bindings to rb_libtorrent were in a separate package. However, with the 0.5 betas, they are integrated into Deluge as a core python module. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 20:28:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:28:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 202528] Review Request: rt2x00-kmod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702252028.l1PKSOIp013637@bugzilla.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: rt2x00-kmod https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202528 jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org ------- Additional Comments From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org 2007-02-25 15:28 EST ------- The rawhide kernel as of 2/25/2007 currently has the d80211 stack and the rt2x00 drivers included in it. Please test this kernel out and report any issues to the kernel maintainers. For the most part, the inclusion of these drivers in the rawhide kernel has rendered this bug obsolete. I'll leave it open for now, but it will likely get closed in the future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 21:12:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:12:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225693] Merge Review: dialog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702252112.l1PLCea4015057@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dialog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225693 mildew at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mildew at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mildew at gmail.com 2007-02-25 16:12 EST ------- (!!) MUST: rpmlint output: **** Review message: W: dialog summary-ended-with-dot A utility for creating TTY dialog boxes. W: dialog hardcoded-path-in-buildroot-tag /var/tmp/dialog-root W: dialog buildprereq-use ncurses-devel, gettext ******************** (!!) MUST: Package must meet the Package Naming Guidelines **** Review message: - name: dialog-1.0.20060221-1 should be: dialog-1.0-1.20060221svn - Release tag should match format %{X}.%{alphatag} => 1.20060221svn - Version tag should be 1.0 ******************** (!!) MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. **** Review message: - Package should not use the %makeinstall macro. - Uses hardcoded buildroot, should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}- root-%(%{__id_u} -n) ******************** (!!) MUST: All build depedencies must be listed in BuildRequires. **** Review message: - Package uses BuildPreReq instead of BuildRequires ******************** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 21:26:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:26:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225632] Merge Review: byacc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702252126.l1PLQbTF015532@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: byacc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225632 ------- Additional Comments From rafalzaq at gmail.com 2007-02-25 16:26 EST ------- Needs work: * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (/usr/bin ? %{_bindir}) * Source tag should use macros * Some files (CHANGES, README, etc.) should be in %doc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 21:53:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:53:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225716] Review Request: gnome-screensaver-frogs - GNOME Screensaver Slideshow of Frogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702252153.l1PLrJoZ016248@bugzilla.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: gnome-screensaver-frogs - GNOME Screensaver Slideshow of Frogs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225716 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-25 16:53 EST ------- Hint 1 : In GNOME screensaver, you can select the "Pictures folder" screensaver, which should allow you to trivially have a slideshow of all pictures in a given directory, which should pretty much do what you want, without requiring an entire package. Hint 2 : The "Pictures folder" screensaver seems pretty broken and/or limited since it doesn't seem to be configurable from the GUI, nor can one figure out where the pictures should go in by default. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 22:51:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:51:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225645] Merge Review: cleanfeed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702252251.l1PMpqIu017868@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cleanfeed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225645 ------- Additional Comments From rafalzaq at gmail.com 2007-02-25 17:51 EST ------- Needs work: * Source 0 is not available (ftp://ftp.exit109.com/users/jeremy/cleanfeed-0.95.7b.tar.gz) * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) * Each %files section should have a %defattr line (wiki: Packaging/ReviewGuidelines) * Some files (CHANGES & README) should be in %doc rpmlint output: Source RPM: W: cleanfeed summary-ended-with-dot A spam filter for Usenet news servers. W: cleanfeed invalid-license distributable W: cleanfeed no-url-tag E: cleanfeed hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/news/bin/filter E: cleanfeed hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/news/bin/filter/filter_innd.pl E: cleanfeed hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/news/bin/filter E: cleanfeed hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/news/bin/filter/filter_innd.pl W: cleanfeed no-%build-section rpmlint of cleanfeed: W: cleanfeed summary-ended-with-dot A spam filter for Usenet news servers. W: cleanfeed invalid-license distributable W: cleanfeed no-url-tag E: cleanfeed only-non-binary-in-usr-lib W: cleanfeed conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/news/cleanfeed.conf E: cleanfeed non-readable /usr/lib/news/bin/filter/filter_innd.pl 0750 E: cleanfeed non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/news/bin/filter/filter_innd.pl 0750 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 23:03:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:03:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702252303.l1PN3QxT018346@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-25 18:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Well, > > * x11 version problem > ---------------------------------------------------------- > [tasaka1 at localhost xblast]$ xblast-x11 > could not load font 24 > could not load font 18 > could not load font 14 > ----------------------------------------------------------- > - turns out that this is because x11 version is not compiled > with "-DMINI_XBLAST" (check x11_config.c). x11 version still > requests vera font, however vera font is not in the font > search path. > BYW according to x11_config.c, x11 version requires some font > from xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859???? (note: I think that these > font packages are not so usual for non-American/European users > like me). > Using -DMINI_XBLAST causes xblast to be compiled for low res screens and thus draw everything in a twice as low resolution, I don't think we want that. The proper fix would be to add a Requires: xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi > * gettext translation character corruption > - well, x11 version does not use gettext, so the sentences > are always English and have no problem. > - some character corruption occurs on -sdl version (currently > I created a link as /usr/share/xblast/locale -> ../locale) > on both de_DE and fr_FR. > I've tried this, but I see no problems on my 64 bit rawhide machine, can you give some examples? Regards, Hans -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Feb 25 23:23:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:23:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702252323.l1PNNcje019099@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-25 18:23 EST ------- The symlinks have now been fixed. The rpmlint devel-file-in-non-devel-package warnings are still there, but as mentioned in #16 and other comments, it does not make sense to put them in a -devel file. However, I may put them in a separate file named sdcc-libc or something like that. I do not know wheter the sdcc package is usable without the libc package; I would have to check with the sdcc devs. Updated files are available from ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/sdcc/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 00:06:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:06:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260006.l1Q063O5020502@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-25 19:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > I can understand about this. Being a mentor will makes one get upset very > easily. Why? Anyway I am not a mentor, but a fellow fedora contributor who happen to be a sponsor. > I have another package in review and I didn't response to my sponsor > quickly so I guess I may have offended him/her and he or she has given up giving > more advice & directions. :( There may be many reasons beside personal feelings explaining why a reviewer stops reviewing, we are all benevolent. > I was and am confused > by those guidelines: some one just told me since I am not a sponsor, I should > not assign the bug to myself when doing the review . If you are not sponsored you cannot approve any package. If you are sponsored but you are not a sponsor you cannot approve packages of people not sponsored. > (And the review guideline tells me if I am in the " fedorabugs" group then I > could start to review packages, and the first step is to assign the bug to > myself. Being a sponsored contributor? That means I should be in the "cvsextras" > group, and it does not matter I think.) You can always comment on any bug, even if you are not already sponsored. But you cannot approve. And it is possible to comment on reviews without doing the formal review. That is what I do all the time. Currently I am not doing a formal review of chmsee, but commenting. Some comments are must fix, but as I said in another comment I don't want to get in the way of another sponsor willing to sponsor you, or another contributor wanting to review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 00:26:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:26:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260026.l1Q0QjLv020933@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-25 19:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #13) > > > I was and am confused > > by those guidelines: some one just told me since I am not a sponsor, I should > > not assign the bug to myself when doing the review . > > If you are not sponsored you cannot approve any package. If you are > sponsored but you are not a sponsor you cannot approve packages of > people not sponsored. > :D much clear now. If I cannot approve any package, I should not assign the bug to myself. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 00:28:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:28:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226209] Merge Review: nut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260028.l1Q0SBC2020975@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226209 mildew at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mildew at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mildew at gmail.com 2007-02-25 19:28 EST ------- (!!) MUST: rpmlint output: **** Review message: W: nut prereq-use fileutils W: nut prereq-use /sbin/chkconfig W: nut prereq-use /sbin/service W: nut buildprereq-use gd-devel W: nut buildprereq-use freetype-devel W: nut buildprereq-use netpbm-devel W: nut buildprereq-use libpng-devel W: nut buildprereq-use net-snmp-devel W: nut buildprereq-use elfutils-devel W: nut buildprereq-use libX11-devel W: nut buildprereq-use libXpm-devel W: nut buildprereq-use libjpeg-devel W: nut buildprereq-use fontconfig-devel W: nut buildprereq-use libusb-devel W: nut prereq-use chkconfig W: nut prereq-use /usr/sbin/useradd W: nut macro-in-%changelog configure - Line: 512 - add --with-statepath and --sysconfdir to %configure (thanks Michael) - Should be: %%configure W: nut patch-not-applied Patch3: nut-2.0.1-bad.patch ******************** (!!) MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. **** Review message: - Packages should not use the PreReq and BuildPrereq tags. Use Requires (or Requires(pre),etc.) and BuildRequires instead. ******************** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 00:32:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:32:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260032.l1Q0WUY1021065@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-25 19:32 EST ------- Regarding the mimetype icon file, I propose that you add the chmfile.png file from gnochm (it is in /usr/share/pixmaps/chmfile.png ). Don't forget to use something like cp -p to get it to keep the timestamp. Then you could add chmfile.png as Source1 and in %install: mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/ cp -p %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/application-x-chm.png ln -s application-x-chm.png $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/icons/gnome/48x48/mimetypes/gnome-mime-application-x-chm.png Since both file will be exactly the same rpm should install them without problem. This solution is not perfect, because we have to duplicate the chmfile.png file, but it seems to be the best to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 00:38:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:38:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260038.l1Q0cGHB021161@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-25 19:38 EST ------- Why isn't %{?_smp_mflags} used? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 01:46:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:46:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260146.l1Q1k3oX023054@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-25 20:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #17) > Regarding the mimetype icon file, I propose that you add > the chmfile.png file from gnochm (it is in > /usr/share/pixmaps/chmfile.png ). Don't forget to use > something like cp -p to get it to keep the timestamp. > Then you could add chmfile.png as Source1 and in %install: > done. This icon is better than nothing because it is just a question mark and a CHM doc.. The question mark looks like "I know nothing" instead of "help docs". And chm is not only for help docs, this is why chmsee-icon.png looks like a book (though more like a dictionary) (In reply to comment #18) > Why isn't %{?_smp_mflags} used? linking problems, don't know how to fix :( Spec URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee-1.0.0-0.8.beta.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 02:46:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:46:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260246.l1Q2k2rk025076@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 21:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Well, > > > > * x11 version problem > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > [tasaka1 at localhost xblast]$ xblast-x11 > > could not load font 24 > > could not load font 18 > > could not load font 14 > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > - turns out that this is because x11 version is not compiled > > with "-DMINI_XBLAST" (check x11_config.c). x11 version still > > requests vera font, however vera font is not in the font > > search path. > > BYW according to x11_config.c, x11 version requires some font > > from xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859???? (note: I think that these > > font packages are not so usual for non-American/European users > > like me). > > > > Using -DMINI_XBLAST causes xblast to be compiled for low res screens and thus > draw everything in a twice as low resolution, I don't think we want that. > The proper fix would be to add a Requires: xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi I have already installed xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi. Does xblast-x11 really work for you? For me it seems this is due that -x11 version want to use vera font, still vera font is not in the font search path. Would you check x11_config.c? > > > * gettext translation character corruption > > - well, x11 version does not use gettext, so the sentences > > are always English and have no problem. > > - some character corruption occurs on -sdl version (currently > > I created a link as /usr/share/xblast/locale -> ../locale) > > on both de_DE and fr_FR. > > > > I've tried this, but I see no problems on my 64 bit rawhide machine, can you > give some examples? I will attach a screenshot. Mamoru -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 02:47:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:47:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260247.l1Q2lkWJ025119@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-25 21:47 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148774) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148774&action=view) screenshot of xblast-sdl on LANG=fr_FR screenshot on LANG=fr_FR xblast-sdl -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 04:42:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:42:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260442.l1Q4gHVT029227@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dovecot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jspaleta at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 05:35:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:35:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260535.l1Q5Z43k030784@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From zhu at redhat.com 2007-02-26 00:35 EST ------- Yes, I mean the file in comment 12. It is good to change the file path to /etc and /usr/share, but this should won't affect users much. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 05:40:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:40:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260540.l1Q5eCNL031127@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-26 00:40 EST ------- Hmm... So how did we get the sources from IBM? If they have a public source control repository that would be one way to point to where we got the sources. If it came to use via private mail or on a disk from IBM or something then it seems like we have a special relationship with IBM for this. Is any other distro shipping this version? Or are we the only ones? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 06:26:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:26:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260626.l1Q6QOaH000961@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 01:26 EST ------- Well, then would you recheck my spec/srpm, add some fixes if you want and resubmit (with the release number changed to integer)? After that I will re-review your (originally my) spec/srpm... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 06:51:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:51:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260651.l1Q6p4uM002221@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From zhu at redhat.com 2007-02-26 01:51 EST ------- OK, here are them: http://reciteword.cosoft.org.cn/redhat/zhcon.spec http://reciteword.cosoft.org.cn/redhat/zhcon-0.2.6-3.src.rpm rpmlint is fine except setuid warning. I just updated the release interger. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 07:04:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260704.l1Q74gHn002776@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 07:05:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:05:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260705.l1Q75iri002857@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 07:15:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:15:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260715.l1Q7FBnV003119@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dovecot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-26 02:15 EST ------- Executive Summary: Okay this package needs some work. I've tried to incorporate as many of the important changes as I could into an updated specfile. I will attach a diff of my spec against the spec in fedora core cvs for your to look over. Additionally you can find my spec and the srpm built from it at. Please take a close look at the specfile diff. If there are any changes that you have an issue with, we will need to discuss them. I'll probably have other minor specfile cleanup suggestions on a second pass through the specfile after we work through the important changes. The very detailed review follows below. Legend: GOOD: + BAD: - Not Applicable: N/A Still in Progress or questinable: ? + MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + MUST: The spec file name is good + MUST: The package is licensed with approved licenses + MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the most relevant actual license. Comment: parts of the upstream code are lcensed under the MIT license, but it is probably best to list the LGPL here alone, since by the nature of the interaction of the licenses the LGPL applies to everything in the upstream source. + MUST: The spec file is written in a close approximation of American English. + MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. + MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. see http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/dovecot-1.0-3.rc22.fc7.src.rpm/result/ + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. + MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. Comment: This appears to be true - MUST: rpmlint output with comments inline below. - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. Need to include COPYING COPYING.MIT and COPYING.LGPL in the docs. Fixed in updated spec diff - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. The SOURCE0 url was inadequate, fixed in the supplied specfile diff. md5sum check passes: upstraam release: d5bd3ce8ba7ca2ee9f563fe63a1f700a dovecot-1.0.rc22.tar.gz included source: d5bd3ce8ba7ca2ee9f563fe63a1f700a dovecot-1.0.rc22.tar.gz - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. comment: /etc/pki/dovecot not owned, fixed in provided specfile diff - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. comment: mkcert.sh is being used in %post. This is not good and it breaks the rule concerning running properly if docs are not present. mkcert should be moved to libexec and used from there. Fixed in the provided spec. - MUST: Header files or static libraries must be in a -devel package. comment: Need to remove .a files or create a -devel package for them with a justification as to why the static libs are needed. The best thing to do is to remove the .la and .a files all together. This is done in the specfile diff provided. - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. Comment: removed in the provided specfile diff. ? MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. Comment: shared libs exist in /usr/lib/dovecot but they appear to be simple plugins for dovecot's own runtime use and not meant for linking. if this is the case, then no corrections need to be made. Please confirm that the items in /usr/lib/dovecot are not meant to be dynamically linkable libraries. ? MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. comment: see rpmlint comments below ? MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. N/A MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. N/A package is not designed to be relocatable N/A MUST: No Large documentation files or -doc subpackage. N/A no pkgconfig(.pc) files in payload N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: no devel subpackage In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A Package does not contain GUI application no need for a %{name}.desktop file RPMLINT COMMENTS INLINE http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mock-results-core/i386/dovecot-1.0-3.rc22.fc7.src.rpm/result/rpmlint.log rpmlint on dovecot-1.0-3.rc22.fc7.src.rpm W: dovecot strange-permission migrate-users 0755 W: dovecot strange-permission migrate-folders 0755 W: dovecot strange-permission dovecot.init 0755 W: dovecot strange-permission perfect_maildir.pl 0755 ...These permissions appear to be okay to me. W: dovecot prereq-use openssl >= 0.9.7f-4, /sbin/chkconfig, /usr/sbin/useradd ... Requires fixed in provided specfile diff. prereq is no longer valid. See the PackagingGuidelines for more details E: dovecot configure-without-libdir-spec ????? I am not sure what rpmlint is trying to tell us here. E: dovecot use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR .... The other option would be to use the appropriate SOURCE# macros for each source file. Changed in the specfile diff provided. W: dovecot macro-in-%changelog _datadir W: dovecot macro-in-%changelog post .... Editted in spec diff W: dovecot mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 82, tab: line 84) .... fixed in spec diff W: dovecot patch-not-applied Patch104: dovecot-1.0.beta2-lib64.patch .... commented out in spec diff rpmlint on dovecot-1.0-3.rc22.fc7.i386.rpm W: dovecot conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/dovecot W: dovecot conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/dovecot .... I think the pam.d config needs to be noreplace to perserve local admin changes if they are made. Updated in the specfile diff. E: dovecot non-standard-gid /var/run/dovecot dovecot .... this is fine. E: dovecot executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/dovecot .... this is standard for initscripts E: dovecot non-readable /etc/pki/dovecot/certs/dovecot.pem 0600 E: dovecot non-standard-uid /var/lib/dovecot dovecot E: dovecot non-standard-gid /var/lib/dovecot dovecot E: dovecot non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/dovecot 0750 E: dovecot non-standard-gid /var/run/dovecot/login dovecot E: dovecot non-standard-dir-perm /var/run/dovecot/login 0750 E: dovecot non-readable /etc/pki/dovecot/private/dovecot.pem 0600 .... all of these rpmlint errors appear to be bogus to me. Please confirm that the permissions and ownership are as intended for these. E: dovecot non-standard-gid /usr/share/doc/dovecot-1.0/examples/mkcert.sh dovecot E: dovecot non-readable /usr/share/doc/dovecot-1.0/examples/mkcert.sh 0750 E: dovecot non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/dovecot-1.0/examples/mkcert.sh 0750 .... I think these are valid errors, if mkcert.sh is really meant to be a doc item. But its being used in post so it needs to be moved out of the doc area. Fixed in provided spec diff. W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib20_convert_plugin.a W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/imap/lib11_imap_quota_plugin.a W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/imap/lib20_zlib_plugin.a W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib01_acl_plugin.a W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib11_trash_plugin.a W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib10_quota_plugin.a W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib02_lazy_expunge_plugin.a W: dovecot devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/dovecot/lib20_mail_log_plugin.a .... the .a files are removed in specfile diff W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%pre rm W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%post mv W: dovecot dangerous-command-in-%preun userdel .... I think these warnings are bogus. Though you may want to look back over the use of the rm and mv commands to see if they are still needed. I think I understand why the restart_flag logic is present. But I do not understand why the ssl cert manipulation logic block is in %post. All the file location testing and conditional use of mv. What cases trigger the mv commands? Is this logic meant for now EOL'd fedora and rhl releases? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 07:18:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:18:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260718.l1Q7IT8e003200@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dovecot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-26 02:18 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148781) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148781&action=view) Diff of spec file changes for merge review items This is the diff between the dovecot.spec in fedora cvs and my merge review edditted dovecot.spec. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 07:20:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:20:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260720.l1Q7K51v003283@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dovecot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jspaleta at gmail.com |tjanouse at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 07:24:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:24:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260724.l1Q7OKoM003391@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dovecot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708 ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com 2007-02-26 02:24 EST ------- You can find the srpm and spec file with my changes at: http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/merge-review/dovecot/ -jef -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 07:40:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 02:40:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260740.l1Q7eFLR003685@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-26 02:40 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148782) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148782&action=view) Remove bogus compiler flags This patch is supposed to resolve the "package doesn't acknowledge RPM_OPT_FLAGS" issues mentioned in comment #6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 08:21:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:21:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260821.l1Q8LaT1004689@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-26 03:21 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148783) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148783&action=view) Misc spec changes This patch addresses various issues with the spec: - Add sdcc-2.6.0-configure.diff. - Pass Q= to make to make building verbose. - Add __os_install_post post-hacks to prevent brp-strip from processing foreign binaries. The last item on this list is a brutal hack to work around limitations/bugs in RH's brp-* scripts. I am using similar hacks for my cross-toolchain rpms for a very long time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 09:07:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:07:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260907.l1Q97EXw007456@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 04:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > > The proper fix would be to add a Requires: xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi > > I have already installed xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi. > Does xblast-x11 really work for you? > For me it seems this is due that -x11 version want to use > vera font, still vera font is not in the font search path. > Would you check x11_config.c? > I've checked it and the relevant lines are: "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-14-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*", /* small */ "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-18-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*", /* medium */ "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-24-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*", /* large */ Note that that is convoluted X11 font naming, now if you look at: /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi/fonts.dir You will find in there: helvB24-ISO8859-1.pcf.gz -adobe-helvetica-bold-r-normal--24-240-75-75-p-138-iso8859-1 And rpm -qf /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi/helvB24-ISO8859-1.pcf.gz gives: xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi-7.1-1.noarch Unfortunately we cannot use strace here as this is going through X. Maybe something is busted with your X-setup? : * Does /etc/X11/fs/config contain: /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi:unscaled in the catalogue = ... lines? * And does /etc/X11/xorg.conf contain: FontPath "unix/:7100" In the Files section? Can you try "entering" "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-24-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*" into xfontsel (from xorg-x11-utils package), maybe you've got more then one font matching "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-24-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*" and maybe that is the problem? > > I've tried this, but I see no problems on my 64 bit rawhide machine, can you > > give some examples? > I will attach a screenshot. > I see your problem, and I don't have it I'll attach a screenshot of my version, I'm using "export LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8" to test, are you also using UTF-8 ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 09:10:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:10:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225707] Merge Review: dosfstools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260910.l1Q9AW4k007674@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dosfstools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225707 pvrabec at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-26 04:10 EST ------- fixed in dosfstools-2.11-7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 09:21:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:21:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226187] Merge Review: nc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260921.l1Q9La03008651@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226187 ------- Additional Comments From rvokal at redhat.com 2007-02-26 04:21 EST ------- The issue I have with OpenBSD source is that it's not compileable with our gcc/kernel. Basically I guess that BSD sockets have some new features we don't support yet. Current OpenBSD source cannot be compiled on Linux without patching it. I would rather make nc obsolete in favor of nc6 which implements also better IPv6 support. At one point the nc6 upstream was quite active, but right now they seem to be rather silent. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 09:41:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:41:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225893] Merge Review: hwdata In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260941.l1Q9f5bL009625@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hwdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225893 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 09:49:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:49:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260949.l1Q9nCPh009999@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 04:49 EST ------- Ralf, Good work and many thanks. Do you think that it would be possible to fix the brp scripts in a generic way, maybe by using file on the bins and then parsing the output? Then we could submit a patch to the brp-scripts so that the ugly hacks can eventually be removed. I know getting patches into rpm is HARD, but I've been speaking with Max Spevack and Spot in person about this for about an hour yesterday at Fosdem (it was great) and I have good hope after our meeting for getting patches into core in general. Basicly the trick is if a core maintainer isn't responsive (disagreements are an entire other issue) and you've tried several times then its ok to send Spot a personal mail with bugzilla URL and explanation and he will do his best to get things moving (and having talked to him in person I believe he will truely do his best and that this should work). Trond can you integrate's Ralf's work and then post a new SRPM for review then I'll start a full review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 09:50:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:50:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260950.l1Q9o12a010072@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 04:50 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148785) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148785&action=view) Working French screenshot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 09:53:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 04:53:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225893] Merge Review: hwdata In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702260953.l1Q9rYDc010223@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hwdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225893 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-26 04:53 EST ------- Missing items from SPEC file:- 1) Add disttag (Not necessary but its good to have it in SPEC) 2) You need to replace following line under %files section %config /usr/share/hwdata/* with /usr/share/hwdata/* Or you can move those files to /etc and add following line %config(noreplace) /usr/share/hwdata/* Above is necessary to make rpmlint output silent. However its ok to have following warning reported by rpmlint W: hwdata no-url-tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 10:00:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:00:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225892] Merge Review: hwbrowser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261000.l1QA0DeL010536@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hwbrowser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225892 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 10:04:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:04:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261004.l1QA43DS010778@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 justin.conover at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |justin.conover at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From justin.conover at gmail.com 2007-02-26 05:03 EST ------- I was able to build the xgl from 02/07/2007 I rebuilt libxkbui from fc5 http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/5/source/SRPMS/libxkbui-1.0.1-1.2.src.rpm This is with ati x1400 and beryl is now working. Thanks, I will keep testing new builds when you have them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 10:08:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:08:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261008.l1QA83cF010989@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-26 05:08 EST ------- Patch from #18 applied and spec file from #19 rebuilt. Updated SRPM and spec file at ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/sdcc/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 10:13:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:13:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261013.l1QAD3Bg011233@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 pvrabec at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(pvrabec at redhat.com| |) | ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-26 05:12 EST ------- comment #12 is fixed in sysklogd-1.4.2-1.fc7, which is a new upstream(RH) release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 10:13:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:13:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225892] Merge Review: hwbrowser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261013.l1QADIYh011259@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hwbrowser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225892 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-26 05:13 EST ------- You may like to use following patch to SPEC. --- hwbrowser.spec 2006-11-24 19:49:55.000000000 +0530 +++ hwbrowser-modified.spec 2007-02-26 15:29:41.000000000 +0530 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -Summary: A hardware browser. +Summary: A hardware browser Name: hwbrowser Version: 0.30 Release: 1%{?dist} @@ -32,6 +32,10 @@ --sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir} --includedir=%{_includedir} \ --libdir=%{_libdir} --bindir=%{_bindir} +for source in *.py; do + sed -i -e '/^#!\/usr/d' $source +done + %build make @@ -55,15 +59,15 @@ %defattr(-,root,root) %doc README AUTHORS COPYING %{_bindir}/hwbrowser -%{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/* -%{_sysconfdir}/security/console.apps/* +%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/* +%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/security/console.apps/* %{_datadir}/hwbrowser %{_datadir}/kontrol-panel/icons/hwbrowser.png %{_datadir}/pixmaps/hwbrowser.png %{_datadir}/applications/redhat-hwbrowser.desktop %changelog -* Fri Nov 24 2006 Nils Philippsen - 0.30 +* Fri Nov 24 2006 Nils Philippsen - 0.30-1 - pick up updated translations (#216597) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 10:16:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:16:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261016.l1QAGfdD011471@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-26 05:16 EST ------- I didn't add the man page conversion, that was added by Miloslav Trmac back in 2004. Whatever the reason was, it seems to be gone with privoxy-3.0.6. -5 has the following fixes: - add disttag - don't convert manpage to UTF-8 - use dynamic pcre - drop license text from spec file, it's already covered in %%doc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 10:18:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:18:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226389] Merge Review: sane-frontends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261018.l1QAICsx011611@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sane-frontends https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226389 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 10:29:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:29:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261029.l1QATCkg012730@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-26 05:29 EST ------- grep requirement fixed in autoconf-2.61-7.fc7, but I have no idea why the timestamp is wrong. As the source matches upstream I'd think we can leave it as it is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 10:42:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:42:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261042.l1QAg4Ux013507@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-26 05:42 EST ------- I don't know what the previous maintainer did, but I've downloaded the original tarball and run a diff against our tarball. There are no changes at all. I've built a new package with upstream sources to clean this up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 10:51:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 05:51:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225298] Merge Review: automake14 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261051.l1QApJW9013904@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake14 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225298 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-26 05:51 EST ------- I can't fix this, our scripts check the md5sum and won't allow a me to replace the file with just a different timestamp. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 11:02:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:02:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261102.l1QB2IJm014314@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 11:02:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:02:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261102.l1QB2I6o014308@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-26 06:02 EST ------- fixed in tn5250-0.17.3-12.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 11:13:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:13:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226658] Merge Review: xsane In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261113.l1QBD7uj014724@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xsane https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226658 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-26 06:13 EST ------- Just checked this package in Mock build environment and created patch to SPEC --- xsane.spec 2007-02-26 16:14:55.000000000 +0530 +++ xsane-modified.spec 2007-02-26 16:15:20.000000000 +0530 @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ %define desktop_vendor fedora Name: xsane -Summary: An X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface. +Summary: An X Window System front-end for the SANE scanner interface Version: 0.991 Release: 4%{?dist} Source0: http://www.xsane.org/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ License: GPL URL: http://www.xsane.org/ Group: Applications/Multimedia -Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-buildroot +Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildRequires: sane-backends-devel gimp-devel libpng-devel libjpeg-devel BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils >= 0.2.92 BuildRequires: libtiff-devel @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ performing the scan and then manipulating the captured image. %package gimp -Summary: A GIMP plug-in which provides the SANE scanner interface. +Summary: A GIMP plug-in which provides the SANE scanner interface Group: Applications/Multimedia Requires(post): gimp >= 2:2.2.12-4 Requires(preun): gimp >= 2:2.2.12-4 @@ -41,7 +41,6 @@ installed to use this package. %prep -rm -rf %{buildroot} %setup -q %patch0 -p1 -b .htmlview %patch1 -p1 -b .medium-definitions @@ -100,9 +99,9 @@ %dir %{_datadir}/sane %dir %{_datadir}/sane/xsane %{_datadir}/sane/xsane/*eula* -%{_sysconfdir}/gimp -%{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d -%config %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d/xsane.conf +%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp +%dir %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d +%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/gimp/plugins.d/xsane.conf %post gimp if [ -x "%{_sbindir}/gimp-plugin-mgr" ]; then @@ -372,7 +371,7 @@ * Mon Jul 26 1999 Tim Powers - update to 0.30 -- added %defattr +- added %%defattr - built for 6.1 * Thu Apr 22 1999 Preston Brown =========================================================================== Also you may need to add following line to SPEC for desktop-file-install --remove-category Application \ Neccesary for warning coming in build.log Then i even saw rpmlint output is not silent on RPM. It gave me I: xsane checking W: xsane rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure --with-install-root=%{buildroot} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. W: xsane rpm-buildroot-usage %build %configure --with-install-root=%{buildroot} --disable-gimp $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. Also Mock build.log is gave me following messages acinclude.m4:8: warning: underquoted definition of AM_PATH_GTK2 acinclude.m4:8: run info '(automake)Extending aclocal' acinclude.m4:8: or see http://sources.redhat.com/automake/automake.html#Extending-aclocal m4/gettext.m4:60: the serial number must appear before any macro definition m4/gettext.m4:83: the serial number must appear before any macro definition AND sed: can't read ./intl/po2tbl.sed.in: No such file or directory Can you please look at these things? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 11:27:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:27:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226389] Merge Review: sane-frontends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261127.l1QBRXvI015345@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sane-frontends https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226389 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-26 06:27 EST ------- Got following rpmlint output E: sane-frontends file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/sane/sane-style.rc A file in /usr is marked as being a configuration file. Store your conf files in /etc/ instead. W: sane-frontends unversioned-explicit-obsoletes sane The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. W: sane-frontends unversioned-explicit-provides sane The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. E: sane-frontends configure-without-libdir-spec A configure script is run without specifying the libdir. configure options must be augmented with something like --libdir=%{_libdir}. Description is included along with warnings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 11:59:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:59:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261159.l1QBx3Gf016551@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 06:59 EST ------- Some initial Should Fix's: * Better document / explain why you've got an empty base package and then a -base package. I think I get it, mecab-dict will buildrequire mecab-devel (and thus mecab-base) if it would actually require mecab plain, then there would be a problem as mecab plain requires macab-dict, which in turn buildrequires mecab plain, chicken and egg problem. Right? * mecab, not mecab base will go into comps, and thus the %description of mecab is what most end users will see. So the decription of mecab should be what you currently have for mecab-base and then the description of mecab-base would be something like: This package contains the actual mecab-files, the mecab package is just a dummy package things are done this way because ...... * Can't we just avoid all this together by not requiring mecab-dict? I understand that mecab is of no use without dicts, but I think there are multiple dictionaries possbile right? Now if a user installs mecab through yum, he will get the dictionary with the shortest name (as that is what yum will choose). Wouldn't it be better to thus let he user install the dict himself instead of doing this through deps? I think its safe to assume that people who want to use mecab no a bit about it as its very specific, and thus know they should install a dict. * Coding Style, as said above this is all SHOULD not MUST. I notice that you use %{__cmd} everywhere instead of just plain "cmd" the Fedora standard sort of is to use just cmd, so use rm instead of %{__rm} I also find this much easier to read. Notice that this also is what the spec templates used throughout fedora contain. But if you're uses to doing things this way and don't want to change it, thats fine too. Once I'm done reviewing this I'll probably never look at that .spec file again. * I also have my questions about the configfile handling. Does mecab-base not work (as a buildrequire) without a config file? Having one file owned and in 2 different packages is very ugly. Also what will happen if i install multiple dicitonaries? Again wouldn't it be better to just let the user add any dictionaries. Or the best would be I think to have a %post in dict packages where they add themselves to the config file through sed magic, or something like that. This is how its handled for fonts and XFs for example. Related to this I also think that you're getting the noreplace flag wrong, noreplace doesn't meant that it cannot be replaced by another package noreplace (AFAIK) means that if the file is modified and you update to a newer mecab-base, that the upgrade then won't replace the conffile when its modified, IOW AFAIK noreplace is exactly what you want. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 12:03:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:03:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226188] Merge Review: ncurses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261203.l1QC3mpj016754@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ncurses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226188 mlichvar at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 12:19:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:19:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226209] Merge Review: nut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261219.l1QCJu0o017496@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: nut https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226209 ------- Additional Comments From mildew at gmail.com 2007-02-26 07:19 EST ------- The Release tag should also include the %{?dist} tag. Release: 2%{?dist} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 12:21:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:21:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225693] Merge Review: dialog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261221.l1QCLaRb017605@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dialog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225693 ------- Additional Comments From mildew at gmail.com 2007-02-26 07:21 EST ------- Fix: Release tag should use the %{?dist} tag Release: 1.20060221svn%{?dist} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 12:22:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:22:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225951] Merge Review: jpilot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261222.l1QCMMc1017686@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: jpilot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225951 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-26 07:22 EST ------- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 12:22:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:22:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225893] Merge Review: hwdata In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261222.l1QCMxr0017737@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hwdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225893 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-26 07:22 EST ------- I've added the disttag, but I disagree with 2) The packaging guidelines don't mandate that every config file needs to be in /etc The files in /usr/share/hwdata/ are config files and should be labeled as such. They can't be moved to /etc without breaking lots of other packages which need to read from those files. I'd like to avoid using a symlink as a) packages using the /usr/share/hwdata will break when /usr isn't mounted and they check only for files, not for directories b) if I need to revert that later it'll be almost impossible with rpm as rpm can't replace symlinks with directories. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 12:24:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:24:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226118] Merge Review: mailx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261224.l1QCOw1J017843@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: mailx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226118 ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-26 07:24 EST ------- APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 12:29:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225288] Merge Review: at In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261229.l1QCTolL018057@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225288 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mmaslano at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-26 07:29 EST ------- Hi Michael, I'm waiting for approved review, I think it's everything allright. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 12:36:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:36:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225893] Merge Review: hwdata In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261236.l1QCaHfB018470@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hwdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225893 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-26 07:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > I've added the disttag, but I disagree with 2) > The packaging guidelines don't mandate that every config file needs to be in /etc > The files in /usr/share/hwdata/ are config files and should be labeled as such. > > They can't be moved to /etc without breaking lots of other packages which need > to read from those files. I'd like to avoid using a symlink as > a) packages using the /usr/share/hwdata will break when /usr isn't mounted and > they check only for files, not for directories > b) if I need to revert that later it'll be almost impossible with rpm as rpm > can't replace symlinks with directories. Ok. That will be enough explanation for me :) We can then let rpmlint output as not silent. Will do Full review tomorrow. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 12:57:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:57:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225893] Merge Review: hwdata In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261257.l1QCv7v9020748@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hwdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225893 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 07:57 EST ------- I strongly disagree that it is acceptable to have config files in /usr. In fact /usr should be mountable read only. And it is in the guidelines, since we are bound to follow the FHS: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-e1c5548cbbe551c7a43d375c524ab2ea0188557e Now it may be so hard to put things in /etc that it isn't doable, but in my opinion it is mandatory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 13:10:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261310.l1QDAbro021440@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 13:11:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:11:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261311.l1QDB04i021465@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 08:10 EST ------- I just did a 64 bit build and that throws these additional rpmlint errors: E: mecab-base binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/mecab ['/usr/lib64'] E: mecab-base binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/mecab/mecab-dict-gen ['/usr/lib64'] E: mecab-base binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/mecab/mecab-system-eval ['/usr/lib64'] E: mecab-base binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/mecab/mecab-cost-train ['/usr/lib64'] E: mecab-base binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/mecab/mecab-test-gen ['/usr/lib64'] E: mecab-base binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/libexec/mecab/mecab-dict-index ['/usr/lib64'] Which can and must be fixed by adding the following two lines: sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool after %configure The lack of rpath however will cause %check to fail, this can be fixed by adding: "export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd`/src/.libs" between %check and cd tests -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 13:25:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:25:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261325.l1QDP2nC022152@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-26 08:25 EST ------- > you should consider removing the exec perms from those files > in the srpm. I don't seem to have any control over this. I tried removing those files from CVS and then adding them back in with fixed permissions, but it didn't work. > XPASS: acl This is fine; we patch in ACL support. When ACL support isn't present the test is skipped anyway so I think this is something that should be fixed upstream. > the source match upstream, but the timestamp is not the same. Next time I update I'll try to remember to use curl -OR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 13:25:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:25:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261325.l1QDPD0k022204@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 sgrubb at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(sgrubb at redhat.com)| ------- Additional Comments From sgrubb at redhat.com 2007-02-26 08:25 EST ------- Yes, we do have a special relationship with IBM. I have no idea if anyone else ships this version. As mentioned in comment #3, the source code was emailed to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 13:34:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:34:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261334.l1QDYVOU022612@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 08:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #21) > > you should consider removing the exec perms from those files > > in the srpm. > > I don't seem to have any control over this. I tried removing those files from > CVS and then adding them back in with fixed permissions, but it didn't work. Ok. Maybe you'll be able to do that after the merge? In any case it is not a big deal. > > XPASS: acl > > This is fine; we patch in ACL support. When ACL support isn't present the test > is skipped anyway so I think this is something that should be fixed upstream. Maybe, but this stops the build... Maybe I am wrong and this is not this test that stops the build? > Next time I update I'll try to remember to use curl -OR. Right. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 13:47:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:47:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261347.l1QDlGD1023667@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-26 08:47 EST ------- Tasaka, 1) Do you think have some chance to include this in with those license issues, just remove pieces of code like i did for geotiff ? 2) How would you do act with this package in this long license issues case ? And my statement: Anyway, i contacted author, wich seems to be the same like for ogdi (and he is really kind and understanded my issues, at last ogdi is solved), and hardwork to get rid of license issues in whatever the cost will be. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 13:52:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:52:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261352.l1QDqjlb024253@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-26 08:52 EST ------- i fixed that stupid proj path lookup. Now i386 fail becouse ld is unable to see a stupid symbol from libGL.so ..... erghhhh. x86_64 is fine. I try to fix it _today_. I will disable gdal from now, since gdal has many problems. But i will put effort to take gdal in an includable shape.Grass can work without gdal, but import/export will be disabled for several gis formats, wich render grass to be able to use only few gis formats. But grass still can be very-very fine even without gdal. Erghhh ... GRASS compiled with ssp flags shows tons of bufer overflows ... so custom ./configure is required. And lots of upstream fixes ... (i will take care, its not so dificult) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 13:54:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:54:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226483] Merge Review: tcsh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261354.l1QDsmEw024504@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226483 mildew at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mildew at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mildew at gmail.com 2007-02-26 08:54 EST ------- (!!) MUST: rpmlint output: **** Review message: W: tcsh invalid-license distributable ******************** (!!) MUST: Package must meet the Package Naming Guidelines **** Review message: %{?dist} tag is not present. Release should be: 14%{?dist} ******************** (!!) MUST: License field in spec must match actual license. **** Review message: - License: distributable According to http://directory.fsf.org/tcsh.html the license should be BSD ******************** (!!) MUST: The package must successfully compile/build on at least 1 architecture. **** Review message: - Package does not compile successfully. For me, it is due to the missing -ltermcap option when linking. Compiles successfully without the tinfo patch. ******************** (!!) MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. **** Review message: - The package does not use the %find_lang macro ******************** (!!) SHOULD: Packager should query upstream for license text file. **** Review message: - License file is missing. ******************** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 14:03:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:03:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261403.l1QE3DMY025583@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-26 09:03 EST ------- Oh, didn't realise it was stopping the build. I'll investigate further. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 14:23:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:23:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226441] Merge Review: sudo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261423.l1QENbR1027694@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sudo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226441 mildew at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mildew at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mildew at gmail.com 2007-02-26 09:23 EST ------- (!!) MUST: rpmlint output: **** Review message: W: sudo summary-ended-with-dot Allows restricted root access for specified users. E: sudo configure-without-libdir-spec --libdir=%{_libdir} is missing in %configure W: sudo mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 60, tab: line 65) ******************** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 14:24:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:24:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261424.l1QEOH3o027788@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 09:24 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > The lack of rpath however will cause %check to fail, this can be fixed by > adding: "export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd`/src/.libs" between %check and cd tests Actually removing rpath completely simply breaks the test because the binary (not installed) actually requres rpath, and your fix (also seemingly recommended on Fedora) seems just a workaround. Rather, does the following work for you? ----------------------------------------------------- %configure %{__sed} -i -e '/dlsearch/s|\(/[a-z/]*\)lib\([a-z/]*\)|\1lib\2 \1lib64\2|g' libtool %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} ----------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 14:25:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:25:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230071] New: Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information 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=230071 Summary: Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rdieter at math.unl.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/libkexiv2.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/libkexiv2-0.1.1-1.src.rpm Description: A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information Needed for newer digikam versions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 14:32:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:32:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261432.l1QEWmVM028462@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 09:32 EST ------- * For garbage character, it disappeared when I type: "LANG=de_DE.UTF-8 xblast-sdl". Sorry for noises. (In reply to comment #11) > I've checked it and the relevant lines are: > "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-14-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*", /* small */ > "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-18-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*", /* medium */ > "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-24-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*", /* large */ > > You will find in there: > helvB24-ISO8859-1.pcf.gz > -adobe-helvetica-bold-r-normal--24-240-75-75-p-138-iso8859-1 >> Maybe something is busted with your X-setup? : > * Does /etc/X11/fs/config contain: > /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi:unscaled > in the catalogue = ... lines? > * And does /etc/X11/xorg.conf contain: > FontPath "unix/:7100" > In the Files section? Well, FontPath is okay, font search path are: ---------------------------------------------------- catalogue = /usr/share/X11/fonts/misc:unscaled, /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi:unscaled, /usr/share/X11/fonts/100dpi:unscaled, /usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1, /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1, /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript, , /usr/share/fonts/korean/misc:unscaled, /usr/share/fonts/korean/misc, /usr/share/fonts/korean/TrueType, /usr/share/fonts/chinese/misc:unscaled, /usr/share/fonts/chinese/misc, /usr/share/fonts/chinese/TrueType, /usr/share/fonts/japanese/misc:unscaled, /usr/share/fonts/japanese/misc, /usr/share/fonts/japanese/TrueType/S2G, /usr/share/fonts/japanese/TrueType/mikachan, /usr/share/fonts/japanese/TrueType/neuropol, /usr/share/fonts/japanese/TrueType, /usr/share/fonts/japanese/efont-unicode-bdf, /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi:unscaled, /usr/share/X11/fonts/TTF, /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi ---------------------------------------------------- > > Can you try "entering" "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-24-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*" into > xfontsel (from xorg-x11-utils package), maybe you've got more then one font > matching "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-24-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*" and maybe that is the > problem? For me, with xfontsel -------------------------------------------------------- "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-14-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*", 12 names match "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-18-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*", 9 names match "-*-helvetica-bold-r-*-*-24-*-*-*-*-*-iso8859-*", 9 names match --------------------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 14:39:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:39:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225236] Merge Review: acl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261439.l1QEdKqi028822@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: acl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225236 twoerner at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|needinfo?(twoerner at redhat.co| |m) | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 14:39:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:39:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261439.l1QEdx05028914@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 09:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > The lack of rpath however will cause %check to fail, this can be fixed by > > adding: "export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd`/src/.libs" between %check and cd tests > > Actually removing rpath completely simply breaks the test because > the binary (not installed) actually requres rpath, and your fix > (also seemingly recommended on Fedora) seems just a workaround. > > Rather, does the following work for you? > ----------------------------------------------------- > %configure > %{__sed} -i -e '/dlsearch/s|\(/[a-z/]*\)lib\([a-z/]*\)|\1lib\2 \1lib64\2|g' libtool > > %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} > ----------------------------------------------------- > Yes that works too, notice that you should replace the lib64 in there with %{_lib}, you could also use %ifarch, but that becomes ugly soon as you will need atleast x86_64 and ppc64 there then and in the future maybe others. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 14:40:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:40:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225611] Merge Review: bc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261440.l1QEe2HF028923@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225611 twoerner at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From twoerner at redhat.com 2007-02-26 09:40 EST ------- - removed grep and mktemp usage from post script, also the requires -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 14:51:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:51:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226481] Merge Review: tcpdump In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261451.l1QEpp2M029633@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcpdump https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226481 mildew at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mildew at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From mildew at gmail.com 2007-02-26 09:51 EST ------- (!!) MUST: rpmlint output: **** Review message: E: tcpdump tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: tcpdump non-utf8-spec-file tcpdump.spec - The spec file must use UTF-8 encoding W: tcpdump macro-in-%changelog post - Line: 316 - disable /etc/init.d requirement and fix %post scripts in arpwatch Should be "%%post" W: tcpdump macro-in-%changelog attr - Line: 493 - uses a buildroot and %attr Should be "%%attr" ******************** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 15:06:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261506.l1QF6sQV030336@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 10:06 EST ------- Well, here what we are required is simply to remove rpath, so here I include your advice. http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/mecab.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/mecab-0.94-0.2.pre2.fc6_LC.src.rpm (well, for normal rpmbuild, I set dist as "fc6_LC"...) --------------------------------------------------------- * Mon Feb 26 2007 Mamoru Tasaka - 0.94-0.2.pre2 - Remove rpath on 64bits. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 15:10:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:10:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261510.l1QFA1Y6030450@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dovecot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708 ------- Additional Comments From tdiehl at rogueind.com 2007-02-26 10:09 EST ------- Comment: shared libs exist in /usr/lib/dovecot but they appear to be simple plugins for dovecot's own runtime use and not meant for linking. if this is the case, then no corrections need to be made. Please confirm that the items in /usr/lib/dovecot are not meant to be dynamically linkable libraries. With respect to the above comment, If there is no -devel package, does that stop someone from being able to build something like http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve?highlight=%28dovecot-sieve%29 against it? I know that Sieve will not build the way dovecot is currently packaged, because the Sieve program needs to be able to find a file called dovecot-config in the "compiled Dovecot sources". I do not know what the correct way to handle this but I ask that you take my comments into consideration, in case someone would like to use Dovecot-Sive with this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 15:12:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:12:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261512.l1QFC4e0030597@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command Alias: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-26 10:12 EST ------- This is nuts; the presense of files with different licenses in a single packages is perfectly fine as long as all of those files are used in accordance with their licenses. Sure, you can't derive a GPL work from one with the Apache License v2; you can't take a piece of a GPL program and use it in an ASL2 program, nor can you do the reverse, but that's not what's being done here. The files are merely being aggregated, and the GPL is clear about "mere aggregation". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 15:14:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:14:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261514.l1QFEVwQ030756@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 10:14 EST ------- Well I just tried installing all the xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859* and xblast-x11 still works fine :| So I'm afraid that there is something broken with your setup. I've tried it on my work machine too (some days ago) and it ran fine there too. Both are rawhide machines though. I believe that adding a Requires: xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi should be sufficient normally. Why it isn't working on your machine I don't understand. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 15:16:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:16:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261516.l1QFGKgS030896@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 10:16 EST ------- looks fine, but what about all my other remarks? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 15:20:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:20:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261520.l1QFKe91031141@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 10:20 EST ------- No full review yet (no time right now) but I've been taking a closer look and the -debuginfo package is still empty. Adding "STRIP=true" to the make install arguments fixes this. (or STRIP=touch, anything but STRIP=strip, which is otherwise harmless). No need to post a new package for this, but I just wanted to write this down before I forget :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 15:54:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:54:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261554.l1QFsTSr001347@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 10:54 EST ------- Well, actually I wonder to what degree we must try to resolve license problem by ourselves... * Fedora thinks that it is okay if no issues are found except that the package contains some codes and we don't know for now where the codes came from? * Or Fedora won't admit a package until the license of all codes included in the package became clear?? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:02:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:02:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226483] Merge Review: tcsh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261602.l1QG2q9H002048@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226483 ------- Additional Comments From mitr at redhat.com 2007-02-26 11:02 EST ------- Thanks for the review. > (!!) MUST: Package must meet the Package Naming Guidelines > **** Review message: > %{?dist} tag is not present. Release should be: 14%{?dist} The dist tag is optional, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag . > (!!) MUST: License field in spec must match actual license. > **** Review message: > - License: distributable > According to http://directory.fsf.org/tcsh.html the license should be BSD Updated. > (!!) MUST: The package must successfully compile/build on at least 1 architecture. > **** Review message: > - Package does not compile successfully. > For me, it is due to the missing -ltermcap option when linking. > Compiles successfully without the tinfo patch. Are you perhaps building on FC-6? -ltinfo is only in rawhide ncurses, and tcsh seems to build correctly using mock. > (!!) MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. > **** Review message: > - The package does not use the %find_lang macro %find_lang works only on gettext message files, but tcsh uses catgets message files. The generated tcsh.file does mark the message files with the corresponding %lang macro. > (!!) SHOULD: Packager should query upstream for license text file. > **** Review message: > - License file is missing. A patch was sent upstream. Updated package is tcsh-6.14-15. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:06:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:06:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261606.l1QG6k9k002414@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-26 11:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #22) > No full review yet (no time right now) but I've been taking a closer look and > the -debuginfo package is still empty. Adding "STRIP=true" to the make install > arguments fixes this. (or STRIP=touch, anything but STRIP=strip, which is > otherwise harmless). Why not disabling it at configuration time? %configure .... STRIP=: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:07:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:07:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261607.l1QG7QNH002498@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-26 11:07 EST ------- Is it a way to remove those questionable code from tarball ? and re-pack it ? Many of questioned code anyway reffer to proprietary formats like microstation,autocad balh blah, so even a stripped down gdal may be pretty usefull. I can do this. On the other side author promised that will contact all those people and try to count down that list to zero. Basicly he wrote all code from there, just have to ask for some sources that he used from various companies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:15:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:15:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225859] Merge Review: groff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261615.l1QGFQtb003111@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: groff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225859 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-26 11:15 EST ------- - missing dist tag - change the buildroot to recomanded: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - add %{?_smp_mflags} - change defattr to (-,root,root,-) - is the dependency on netpbm-progs necessary? - is it possible to remove %makeinstall macro and use make install command? - there should be used -p to preserve the timestamps rpmlint output: * srpm W: groff summary-ended-with-dot A document formatting system. E: groff tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: groff non-utf8-spec-file groff.spec W: groff prereq-use /sbin/install-info W: groff unversioned-explicit-obsoletes groff-tools W: groff unversioned-explicit-provides nroff-i18n W: groff buildprereq-use byacc E: groff hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/X11/app-defaults W: groff mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 145, tab: line 105) W: groff patch-not-applied Patch14: groff-xlibs.patch W: groff patch-not-applied Patch22: groff-1.18.1.1-bigendian.patch *rpm W: groff summary-ended-with-dot A document formatting system. E: groff tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: groff obsolete-not-provided groff-tools E: groff only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: groff non-executable-script /usr/share/groff/1.18.1.4/font/devps/generate/symbol.sed 0644 E: groff zero-length /usr/share/groff/1.18.1.4/tmac/mm/locale E: groff non-executable-script /usr/share/groff/1.18.1.4/font/devdvi/generate/CompileFonts 0644 E: groff non-executable-script /usr/lib/groff/groffer/version.sh 0644 E: groff zero-length /usr/share/groff/1.18.1.4/tmac/mm/se_locale E: groff non-executable-script /usr/share/groff/1.18.1.4/font/devps/generate/afmname 0644 E: groff-debuginfo tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: groff-gxditview summary-ended-with-dot An X previewer for groff text processor output. E: groff-gxditview tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: groff-gxditview no-documentation W: groff-perl summary-ended-with-dot Parts of the groff formatting system that require Perl. E: groff-perl tag-not-utf8 %changelog -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:28:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:28:24 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261628.l1QGSO5L004270@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-26 11:28 EST ------- Well, we have *how* many copies of the GPL in /usr/share/doc, but... I don't care that much. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:32:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:32:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225910] Merge Review: ipv6calc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261632.l1QGW5sF004456@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ipv6calc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225910 varekova at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |varekova at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From varekova at redhat.com 2007-02-26 11:32 EST ------- - missing dist tag - change the buildroot tag to recomanded: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - add %{?_smp_mflags} - change defattr to (-,root,root,-) - URL tag is wrong - there should be used -p to preserve the timestamps rpmlint output: * srpm W: ipv6calc invalid-license GNU GPL version 2 W: ipv6calc macro-in-%changelog description W: ipv6calc macro-in-%changelog files W: ipv6calc macro-in-%changelog build W: ipv6calc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 164, tab: line 1) * rpm W: ipv6calc invalid-license GNU GPL version 2 W: ipv6calc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ipv6calc-0.61/ipv6logstats/collect_ipv6logstats.pl /usr/bin/perl W: ipv6calc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ipv6calc-0.61/ipv6logconv/run_analog.sh /bin/sh W: ipv6calc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ipv6calc-0.61/ipv6logstats/example_ipv6logstats.sh /bin/sh W: ipv6calc-debuginfo invalid-license GNU GPL version 2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:37:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:37:29 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_New=3A_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi?= =?iso-8859-1?q?-ucode_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_394?= =?iso-8859-1?q?5_A/B/G_network_adaptors?= 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=230096 Summary: Review Request: iwlwifi-ucode - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: matthias at rpmforge.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/iwlwifi-ucode/iwlwifi-ucode.spec SRPM URL: http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/iwlwifi-ucode/iwlwifi-ucode-2.14.1-1.src.rpm Description: This package contains the microcode required by the iwlwifi driver for Linux. Usage of the firmware is subject to the terms and conditions contained inside the provided LICENSE.iwlwifi-ucode file. Please read it carefully. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:41:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:41:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261641.l1QGflXs005133@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 ------- Additional Comments From ajackson at redhat.com 2007-02-26 11:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > > I did the same to all the driver packages I could, with the exception of a few > > that really are arch-specific. [...] > > thx, looks a lot better. But I think I spotted a bug: xorg-x11-drv-i810 should > be required on x86_64, too, as there are x86_64 compatible boards with intel > graphic chipsets out there. Worse than that, there are ia64 boards with i810 chips too. Fixed now. > Regarding the bugs: > > - Fixing Bug 199381 would be nice and shouldn't do any harm, even if those > drivers are are not (yet) packaged in main Fedora -- but I don't consider this a > blocker (sorry dgilmore -- I'm counting on ajax cooperation in this case). Until I know that the drivers are actually packaged, I don't see the need to break the metapackage on sparc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:42:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:42:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261642.l1QGgfro005243@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 11:42 EST ------- Yes, that will work too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:50:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:50:13 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261650.l1QGoDtY006030@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-26 11:50 EST ------- http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2200-firmware/ipw2200-firmware-3.0-7.src.rpm http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/ipw2200-firmware/ipw2200-firmware.spec * Mon Feb 26 2007 Matthias Saou 3.0-7 - Move from a symlink to using a copy for the LICENSE (cleaner and easier). I've got one last doubt : Is the name of the package OK? I recall naming it like this to have it as explicit as possible, ("firmware" instead of plain "fw"), but now that the latest 3945 cousin is a "microcode", with the package/file called "ucode", I'm not sure what do do... 1) Use "fw" for ipw2100/ipw2200 and "ucode" for ipw3945 2) Keep "firmware" for ipw2100/ipw2200 and use "microcode" for ipw3945 3) Keep "firmware" for ipw2100/ipw2200 and use "ucode" for ipw3945 (my choice) 4) Keep "firmware" for ipw2100/ipw2200 and also use it for ipw3945 ...maybe this should be raised on the packagers mailing-list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:50:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226338] Merge Review: PyQt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261650.l1QGoGd5006041@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: PyQt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226338 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-26 11:50 EST ------- Good catch, use (something like) Source0: http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/Downloads/PyQt3/GPL/PyQt-x11-gpl-%{version}.tar.gz instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:54:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:54:50 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-ucode_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/B/G?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261654.l1QGso1R006396@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-ucode - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-26 11:54 EST ------- Even though the upstream tarball is named iwlwifi-ucode, calling the package iwlwifi-firmware (with Provides: iwlwifi-ucode if seen useful) would be IMO be a better choice for consistency with other similar packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:55:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261655.l1QGt6c2006438@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 11:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > looks fine, but what about all my other remarks? Just I didn't look them... Well, your suggestion seems preferable. However I am always annoyed when I review packages * main package requires some data * and the data is provided by several package and only one is required and the views are different between the packages... http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/mecab.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/mecab-0.94-0.3.pre2.fc6_LC.src.rpm (for now also write jumandic here) http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SPECS/mecab-jumandic.spec http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mtasaka/dist/extras/development/SRPMS/mecab-jumandic-5.1.20051121-2.fc6_LC.src.rpm * Tue Feb 27 2007 Mamoru Tasaka - 0.94-0.3.pre2 - Package requirement deps reconstruct * Tue Feb 27 2007 Mamoru Tasaka - 5.1.20051121-2 - Package requirement deps reconstruct -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:56:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:56:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261656.l1QGujf5006597@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From mgarski at post.pl 2007-02-26 11:56 EST ------- In email conversation Christopher Fynn suggest such package name: fonts-tibetan-dzongkha fonts-dzongkha-tibetan fonts-tibetan-bhutanese I would like to pack Tibetan Machine Uni and Jomolhari in one package and name it fonts-tibetan-dzongkha, also wait for next version of fonts created by Dzongkha Development Authority, pack it (if DDA use license that is accepted by RH) and name it fonts-bhutanese or fonts-dzongkha (as they are Tibetan script fonts but in Bhutanese style intended to write in Dzongkha). Jens? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:58:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:58:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261658.l1QGwNvm006720@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: adaptx https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 16:59:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:59:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261659.l1QGxHsf006782@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 11:59 EST ------- I feel that we can leave the may-be-problems issues to upstream for now because according to your comment you and the upstream are communicating well and upstream are trying hard to clarify the license issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:02:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:02:53 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261702.l1QH2rmk007056@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-26 12:02 EST ------- My strongish opinion is that all firmware packages should be falled $foo-firmware, no matter what the upstream distributables are named (with additional case by case Provides: if they're seen useful). And this is not only about ipw2100/ipw2200/ipw3945 - there are already at least at76_usb-firmware, zd1211-firmware, and alsa-firmware being submitted/reviewed; having a tech-jargon-1337-speak-oddball foo-ucode in the mix for just one package would sound silly to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:03:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:03:37 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-ucode_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/B/G?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261703.l1QH3bkS007100@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-ucode - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |notting at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-26 12:03 EST ------- He he, exactly what I just asked in bug #217351 (the ipw2200-firmware review) :-) If we think that what is contained in these packages isn't "wrongly" named when being referred to as "firmware", then sure, we could call all of them "firmware". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:06:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:06:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261706.l1QH6fA2007261@bugzilla.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: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910 ------- Additional Comments From bpeck at redhat.com 2007-02-26 12:06 EST ------- Thank you for the feedback. I've updated the spec file and the patches with your suggestions. http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux-0-0.1.r484.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux-0.1.r484.tar.gz http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux.spec version-release is now: 0-0.1.r484 comment in the spec file on how to check out this version of conmux from svn. and I moved the drivers/helpers from /usr/lib/conmux to /usr/share/conmux since they are just expect/perl/python scripts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:07:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:07:35 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/?= =?iso-8859-1?q?B/G_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261707.l1QH7ZEJ007337@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: iwlwifi- |Review Request: iwlwifi- |ucode - Microcode for |firmware - Microcode for |Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 |Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 |A/B/G network adaptors |A/B/G network adaptors ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-26 12:07 EST ------- http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/iwlwifi-firmware/iwlwifi-firmware.spec http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/iwlwifi-firmware/iwlwifi-firmware-2.14.1-2.src.rpm * Mon Feb 26 2007 Matthias Saou 2.14.1-2 - Initial RPM release. - Rename from -ucode to -firmware. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:09:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:09:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261709.l1QH9VPq007495@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command Alias: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 12:09 EST ------- Thanks, Jason. Removing FE-legal, so would you fix the package according to my comment 45? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:11:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:11:02 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_217351=5D_Review_Request=3A_ipw2200-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Firmware_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_2200_net?= =?iso-8859-1?q?work_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261711.l1QHB27r007640@bugzilla.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: ipw2200-firmware - Firmware for Intel? PRO/Wireless 2200 network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217351 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-26 12:10 EST ------- There's currently a discussion on -packaging about this. I suppose all reviews are sort of held up on it. Hopefully we'll get it banged out this week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:11:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:11:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228960] Review Request: java-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261711.l1QHBs0A007759@bugzilla.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: java-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228960 overholt at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-26 12:11 EST ------- I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:24:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:24:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229476] Review Request: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261724.l1QHO13c008516@bugzilla.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: xblast - Lay bombs and Blast the other players of the field (SDL version) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229476 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 12:23 EST ------- Well, I tried on FC5 system and the result was ... no problem ... Also for ISO8859 fonts: ------------------------------------------ [tasaka1 at localhost ~]$ grep ISO8859 /var/log/rpmpkgs xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.0-3.noarch.rpm xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi-7.0-3.noarch.rpm ------------------------------------------ Only two rpms are installed but it was okay... So for now I assume that -x11 should work normally. So would you update srpm/spec with the left issues fixed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:42:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:42:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225256] Merge Review: arts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261742.l1QHgDqa009700@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: arts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225256 than at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE AssignedTo|rdieter at math.unl.edu |than at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From than at redhat.com 2007-02-26 12:42 EST ------- it's now comitted in CVS -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:51:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:51:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225708] Merge Review: dovecot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261751.l1QHp4FC010137@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dovecot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225708 jspaleta at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|tjanouse at redhat.com |jspaleta at gmail.com Flag|fedora-review- |needinfo?(tjanouse at redhat.co | |m), fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:53:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:53:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261753.l1QHrZVB010289@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From jonathansteffan at gmail.com 2007-02-26 12:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #23) > I was able to build the xgl from 02/07/2007 Did you use mock? When I mockbuild this srpm I end up missing /usr/lib/xorg/modules/xgl/libxglx.so and Xgl then does not work. If you did not use mock, would you please: rpm -qa|grep devel > This is with ati x1400 and beryl is now working. How are you starting Xgl? Also, I have made the suggested changes to the spec per comment #21. I don't want to step on the package owners toes and publish my changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 17:59:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:59:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261759.l1QHxuAP010608@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 18:26:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:26:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261826.l1QIQHe7012410@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com 2007-02-26 13:26 EST ------- SPEC: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-PHPUnit.spec SRPM: http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/php-pear-PHPUnit-3.0.5-1.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Feb 26 2007 Christopher Stone 3.0.5-1 - Upstream sync -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 18:29:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:29:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261829.l1QITw8t012868@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 18:31:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:31:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261831.l1QIVT4g012989@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-26 13:31 EST ------- ping. update ? (pcnet.ro has verilog employee ?!, [*cbalint remark and wonders how an ISP is dealing with verilog ?!, maybe in their free time.]) Yes, sorry for confusions, the new path is: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/iverilog-20070123-3.src.rpm > Visually seems fine. And yes, since I have a few dozens hardware engineers You review this package visualy, by functionality or by the way how its packed to meet fedora-standards ? > around, I prefer to have one of them test the program. And no, I do not >expect it to replace Questa or VCS yet. What to test ? As i mentioned this is not kind of from today till tomorrow software, look @ http://www.icarus.com/eda/verilog/, you will notice that it was developed over few years, with some obvious efforts by some contributors and in recent time even enhanched by some well known companies like bsemi.com or sun.com And by the way, if a huge project (~1mil gates) prove the functionality as debugger and compiler do you think it can be worse ? 1) http://www.opencores.org/projects.cgi/web/s1_core/overview , yes they use test scripts as alterative to VCS and seems run fine. Still works are in progress over that project (just look inside the project) 2) Olso, mention as contributor to openrisc cpu that iverilog is used inside that project in some cases quite exclusive, and its kinda cpu that was taped even in real silicon, and it iverilog do great job in simulation. 3) We are supposed to review the package not compare verilog compilers or whatever this kind of task, you cannot expect to compet with whatever comercial compilers, so that is task for upstream contributors not for fedora. And by the way debian packed it in their distro since few years. 4) Yes it has problems. There are buch of problems in parser e.g, but basic verilog compile ans simulation is OK, if you know to avoid tham you can avoid in very large projects. But wich opensource project is perfect ? iVerilog meant to be a complementary tool for geda-* tools wich are already in -extras ! And geda cannot replace altium.orcad or comercial software ! If want to review functionality and contribute please look forward for mainstream contributions, (64 arches still have some minor leaks, parser is sucky and so on with the list of TODO), otherwise please consider this as a fedora-extra package wich i request for submission. I am looking forward to push this to -extras for make it aviable for fedora folks. And regarding testcases i am right now looking forward to pack in -5 the testcases that comes as extra package on icarus website. /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 18:34:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:34:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261834.l1QIYOjY013127@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 13:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > looks fine, but what about all my other remarks? > > Just I didn't look them... > Well, your suggestion seems preferable. However I am always annoyed > when I review packages > * main package requires some data > * and the data is provided by several package and only one is > required > and the views are different between the packages... > > This new version looks much better and rpmlint likes it too :) So here's the full review: MUST: ===== * rpmlint output is: W: mecab-devel no-documentation * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines * License ok * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream * Compiles and builds on devel x86_64 * BR: ok * No locales * Shared libraries, ldconfig run as required * Not relocatable * Package owns / or requires all dirs * No duplicate files & Permissions ok * %clean & macro usage OK * Contains code only * %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package * -devel package as needed * no .desktop file required Approved by Hans de Goede, time to file a CVS branch request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 18:36:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:36:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261836.l1QIaROn013237@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 13:36 EST ------- Chitlesh, perhaps your mail address has a typo? It seems that the owner of magic is registered as yyahoo, not yahoo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 18:41:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:41:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261841.l1QIfkVJ013636@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 13:41 EST ------- Thank you!! Request to CVS admin about new package: --------------------------------------------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mecab Short Description: Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer Owners: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Branches: FC-devel FC-6 FC-5 InitialCC: (nobody) --------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 18:44:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:44:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 208737] Review Request: ivman - Generic handler for HAL events In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261844.l1QIiKS1013955@bugzilla.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: ivman - Generic handler for HAL events https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208737 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-26 13:44 EST ------- Oh well, such is life. Go ahead and orphan it then... remember to follow the procedure at: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageEndOfLife Please close this review request once you are done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 18:44:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:44:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261844.l1QIiSET013989@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-26 13:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #24) > Chitlesh, perhaps your mail address has a typo? > It seems that the owner of magic is registered as > yyahoo, not yahoo. Yes, true. I'll contact warren to see whether he can change it or not on owners.list -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:08:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:08:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261908.l1QJ8hWb016296@bugzilla.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: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-26 14:08 EST ------- Offenders at the first sight: - I think it would have been better if you have used version=0 (or even 0.0..) release=0.484svn <-- the leading 0 would be used as release tag and increased for each new version of the spec (for a given snapshot release) This way the fact that we are dealing with svn snapshots is clearly indicated, even for those which do not examine the spec or do an actual checkout - The changelog should contain an entry for the current version; for the moment there is just one entry which speaks about 0-0.1.20070223svn while the submitted package is 0-0.1.r484; if 20070223svn and 0.1.r484 are one and the same, please edit the changelog to fit (do not forget to increase the release tag each time you submit a new form of the spec file!) - the license tag should be just "GPL" rather then "GPLv2" - location of the Conmux.pm in conmux-common does not seem right, the site_perl directory should be one level higher then the one you install to: #ll /usr/lib/perl5/ 5.8.5/ 5.8.6/ 5.8.7/ 5.8.8/ site_perl/ vendor_perl/ while your spec creates: #rpm -qlp conmux-common-0-0.1.r484.fc6.noarch.rpm /etc/conmux/conmux.conf /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Conmux.pm - the conmux package includes the whole /etc/conmux directory, overlapping with conmux-common which includes /etc/conmux/conmux.conf; at install time they would conflict - the -client and -common packages are missing the mandatory %defattr line - since you use service and chkconfig to add/remove the Conmux service, you must add requirements for them (see the packaging guidelines for details on scriptlets) - if the /etc/init.d/conmux script would contain restart/reload sections, rpmlint would be happier (that's a nice-to-have, not a must) - you create /var/log/conmux; it would be nice if you would also provide a means for logrotate to handle it. However this is open for debate because you'll need to %Require logrotate, which OTOH some people might prefer to not use (or replace with something else). As a sidenote, I think that the name "console" used by the client is a bit too generic and might clash with other console clients -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:12:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:12:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229929] Review Request: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261912.l1QJCVxE016736@bugzilla.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: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229929 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 14:12 EST ------- I just tried to build this to review it and it fails with: make: /usr/lib64exec/mecab/mecab-dict-index: Command not found make: /usr/lib64exec/mecab/mecab-dict-index: Command not found Whereas mecab installs: [hans at shalem ~]$ rpm -ql mecab mecab-0.94-0.3.pre2.x86_64 /etc/mecabrc /usr/bin/mecab /usr/lib64/libmecab.so.1 /usr/lib64/libmecab.so.1.0.0 /usr/libexec/mecab /usr/libexec/mecab/mecab-cost-train /usr/libexec/mecab/mecab-dict-gen /usr/libexec/mecab/mecab-dict-index /usr/libexec/mecab/mecab-system-eval /usr/libexec/mecab/mecab-test-gen So this needs fixing as /usr/lib64exec does not even exist on my system (and /usr/libexec is part of the filesystem package). So mecab-jumandic should always be using /usr/libexec or %{_libexecdir} even when on 64 bit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:17:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:17:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261917.l1QJHRfZ017346@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command Alias: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 14:17 EST ------- (In reply to comment #51) > This is nuts; the presense of files with different licenses in a single packages > is perfectly fine as long as all of those files are used in accordance with > their licenses. Sure, you can't derive a GPL work from one with the Apache > License v2; you can't take a piece of a GPL program and use it in an ASL2 > program, nor can you do the reverse, but that's not what's being done here. The > files are merely being aggregated, and the GPL is clear about "mere aggregation". I have seen interpretations of what is mere aggregation and derived work that don't follow that one. I have seen somewhere that being in the same tarball was not mere aggregation but derived work. In fact, still if I recall well it is the court that would settle that. Considering that files in the same tarball should have compatible license would put us on the safe side. However if the authors of the 2 pieces of software are the same people then it is not that problematic, since the author would have to attack himself. The issue in that case is that a court may rule that both license cannot apply to the package. As a disclaimer, I have to add that I am not a lawyer and I may be completely wrong. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:17:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:17:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226448] Merge Review: sysklogd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261917.l1QJHcsW017398@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sysklogd https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226448 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-26 14:17 EST ------- Yep. Looks good from here... I'll go ahead and close this review rawhide. Thanks again for all your patience. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:20:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:20:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261920.l1QJKbjq017715@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 14:20 EST ------- If the problematic code may result in somebody suing fedora because of license violation, this is not acceptable, in my opinion. If it is just an issue of incompatible licenses because the authors made mistakes, this is acceptable, still in my opinion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:21:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:21:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261921.l1QJLIhq017863@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 ------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com 2007-02-26 14:21 EST ------- Sorry Steve, I missed that part of #3 when I read this the first time. I would say, unless IBM makes new releases on sourceforge, we should treat this as a case of We Are Upstream: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SourceUrl#WeAreUpstream (That was voted on last week and will be made official tomorrow as no one has objected.) the comment should contain something like: # We work closely with IBM on this from sources that they share with us via email. # Unless IBM begins to update their work on amtu.sf.net, this SRPM will be # considered the upstream source. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:26:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:26:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226441] Merge Review: sudo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261926.l1QJQMbl018443@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: sudo https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226441 ------- Additional Comments From pvrabec at redhat.com 2007-02-26 14:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > (!!) MUST: rpmlint output: > **** Review message: > W: sudo summary-ended-with-dot Allows restricted root access for specified users. Which sudo release? > E: sudo configure-without-libdir-spec > --libdir=%{_libdir} is missing in %configure Even if I add this line, I'll get this error again. I'd like to ignore it, since sudo doesn't use lib directory for anything. > W: sudo mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 60, tab: line 65) fixed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:27:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:27:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261927.l1QJROjK018592@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-26 14:27 EST ------- Need to do more things from my side ? (i ask, really dont know the further procedure, must stick with some flags in in this bz ?!) BTW, i re-uploaded the package with right timestamp + that small '*' removed, but not increased -ver. Anyway must thank you a lot for the very good review over the package ! Really impressive fidelity ! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:30:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:30:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261930.l1QJUsW9018832@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-26 14:30 EST ------- pong :) Look for the review a bit later. WRT your questions: 1. I see no reason to bring pcnet into discussion. I am in no way related to them. 2. visually == visual inspection of the new spec. 3. In a review I try to take into account all the aspects you have mentioned. By accident (or not) I happen to work in a hardware company so I can also do more tests then just "this program does not segfault at start". Yes, emphasize is on how it is packed but a non-functional program would not be useful, no matter how well packaged it is. 4.As of testing, I just want to see it compiling a Verilog program created by one of my colleagues. Nothing fancy. During the review I have absolutely no intention to compare its performances with commercial programs with the same functionality. 5. I happen to know quite well the program, I've watched it (together with gEDA) with very great interest over the years, exactly because I would like to have our current tools (which require licenses which go monthly for amounts expressed with 5 digits) replaced. Since you intend to extend a bit the package (I suggest creating a separate package for test cases, BTW) maybe you could include the FAQ - http://www.icarus.com/eda/verilog/FAQ.html in the main package) And last but not least, since you need a sponsor, I MAY NOT approve your package, no matter how well packed it is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:31:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229927] Review Request: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261931.l1QJVZwS018954@bugzilla.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: mecab - Yet Another Part-of-Speech and Morphological Analyzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229927 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:32:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:32:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261932.l1QJWhaW019087@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 14:32 EST ------- Now you should follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors You are already at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-bb3314e7b80fd98f037edd46f6d1efafbb611752 (but I suggest that you reread the whole document and follow the links in case you didn't do that already). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:38:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:38:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227087] Review Request: modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp - Modello Data Model toolkit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261938.l1QJcEKZ019811@bugzilla.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: modello-1.0-0.a8.4jpp - Modello Data Model toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227087 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-26 14:38 EST ------- Here are the links to an update spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/249/modello.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/250/modello-1.0-0.1.a8.4jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 19:46:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:46:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227084] Review Request: maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp - Surefire is a test framework project. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702261946.l1QJkTi5020931@bugzilla.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: maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp - Surefire is a test framework project. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227084 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:00:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:00:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262000.l1QK0oU4022217@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-26 15:00 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > pong :) > Look for the review a bit later. > WRT your questions: > 1. I see no reason to bring pcnet into discussion. I am in no way related to them. dont take as offence, i just reminded my old times ... ok, lets dont imply parties. (anyway, in older time i worked at RDS ;-) i weared pretty the same 'shoe', but have a bad-remind of those days, you know best why) > 2. visually == visual inspection of the new spec. > 3. In a review I try to take into account all the aspects you have mentioned. By > accident (or not) I happen to work in a hardware company so I can also do more > tests then just "this program does not segfault at start". Yes, emphasize is on > how it is packed but a non-functional program would not be useful, no matter how > well packaged it is. > 4.As of testing, I just want to see it compiling a Verilog program created by > one of my colleagues. Nothing fancy. During the review I have absolutely no > intention to compare its performances with commercial programs with the same > functionality. ok. sounds interesting, looking forward for the positiveness of the results. > 5. I happen to know quite well the program, I've watched it (together with gEDA) > with very great interest over the years, exactly because I would like to have > our current tools (which require licenses which go monthly for amounts expressed > with 5 digits) replaced. > > Since you intend to extend a bit the package (I suggest creating a separate > package for test cases, BTW) maybe you could include the FAQ - > http://www.icarus.com/eda/verilog/FAQ.html in the main package) I thinked at a separate package, i work right now to pack. > And last but not least, since you need a sponsor, I MAY NOT approve your > package, no matter how well packed it is. Well is see no reason to not approve. :-(. I hope my and your main intention (you taked the sponsorship) is to push forward this compiler not to sentence it to dead, i see no reason why not. I am sure reviewing it we can find an acceptable way reasoning the usefullnes of this package, i allready see the usefullness of it. If geda was approved, but compared with comercial packs is realy,really baby, i think iverilog is quite usable for small projects, and some experts can adapt even for huge ones. Every things must start somewhere, gnu gcc booted with baby shoes and now can outperform many comercial compilers, its a question of time and interest of parties. ok, i wait for your tests, util than i try to came up with the test-suite pack. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:08:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:08:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 223591] Review Request: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262008.l1QK8IA1023045@bugzilla.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: Magic - A very capable VLSI layout tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223591 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:14:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:14:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262014.l1QKEPTl023415@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command Alias: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-26 15:14 EST ------- I fail to comprehend how aggregating within a tarball would be bad, while aggregating within an ISO file (as Fedora does today) would be acceptable. I think that if we actually keep a package out of Fedora because of crazy interpretations such as this then we truly have lost the plot. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:16:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:16:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262016.l1QKGU0I023602@bugzilla.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: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910 ------- Additional Comments From bpeck at redhat.com 2007-02-26 15:16 EST ------- Thanks for the additional feedback. The spec and srpm have been updated. - Renamed the versioning again - and fixed the changelog entry to match. Oops - License fixed to GPL (although I would think people will want to specify) - I'm unclear how I can fix the Conmux.pm since I'm using the rpm macro to install it. %{perl_sitelib}/Conmux.pm - Fixed the overlapping /etc/conmux/conmux.conf in both base and common. - Fixed %defattr for common and client - Added the requires for chkconfig and service - I'm currently using the maintainers init script with a small patch for chkconfig. I'd like to redo it but its a fairly invasive change that would require a lot of testing - added logrotate pieces - I could change the name but this is the name in the upstream package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:26:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:26:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197734] Review Request: xmoto - Challenging 2D Motocross Platform Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262026.l1QKQMqI024396@bugzilla.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: xmoto - Challenging 2D Motocross Platform Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197734 limb at jcomserv.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |limb at jcomserv.net ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-26 15:26 EST ------- Change owner to limb at jcomserv.net (orphaned) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:26:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:26:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 201153] Review Request: tuxpuck - 3D Shufflepuck Pong Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262026.l1QKQimr024461@bugzilla.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: tuxpuck - 3D Shufflepuck Pong Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201153 limb at jcomserv.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |limb at jcomserv.net ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-26 15:26 EST ------- Change owner to limb at jcomserv.net (orphaned) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:27:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:27:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 201153] Review Request: tuxpuck - 3D Shufflepuck Pong Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262027.l1QKR5hE024510@bugzilla.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: tuxpuck - 3D Shufflepuck Pong Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201153 limb at jcomserv.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:27:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:27:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197734] Review Request: xmoto - Challenging 2D Motocross Platform Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262027.l1QKR68c024530@bugzilla.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: xmoto - Challenging 2D Motocross Platform Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197734 limb at jcomserv.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:35:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:35:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230140] New: Review Request: SILLY - Simple and easy to use library for image loading 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=230140 Summary: Review Request: SILLY - Simple and easy to use library for image loading Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: packages at amiga-hardware.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/SILLY.spec SRPM URL: http://dribble.org.uk/reviews/SILLY-0.1.0-1.src.rpm Description: The Simple Image Loading LibrarY is a companion library of the CEGUI project. It provides a simple and easy to use library for image loading. It currently supports the following formats: TGA (Targa) JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) PNG (Portable Network Graphics) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:37:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:37:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 201153] Review Request: tuxpuck - 3D Shufflepuck Pong Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262037.l1QKbF8v025263@bugzilla.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: tuxpuck - 3D Shufflepuck Pong Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201153 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:37:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:37:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262037.l1QKbHhn025277@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-26 15:37 EST ------- full review is coming up ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:37:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:37:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197734] Review Request: xmoto - Challenging 2D Motocross Platform Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262037.l1QKbcaW025338@bugzilla.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: xmoto - Challenging 2D Motocross Platform Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197734 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:38:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:38:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262038.l1QKc8Ux025450@bugzilla.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: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-26 15:38 EST ------- ping ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:39:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:39:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221015] Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262039.l1QKdTks025672@bugzilla.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: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:41:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:41:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230142] New: Review Request: SBLIM megapackage 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=230142 Summary: Review Request: SBLIM megapackage Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: hamzy at us.ibm.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://sblim.sourceforge.net/fedora-rpms/sblim.spec SRPM URL: http://sblim.sourceforge.net/fedora-rpms/sblim-1-12.fc6.src.rpm SBLIM is currently in Fedora extras as four packages: sblim-cmpi-base sblim-cmpi-devel sblim-testsuite sblim-wbemcli I am proposing removing those four and creating just one sblim pacakge. This package will then build all of the subcomponents within it. Currently, it builds: sblim-cmpi-base sblim-cmpi-devel sblim-wbemcli sblim-gather sblim-testsuite sblim-cmpi-network sblim-cmpi-params sblim-cmpi-sysfs sblim-cmpi-syslog sblim-cmpi-fsvol sblim-cmpi-nfsv3 sblim-cmpi-nfsv4 A short description is: SBLIM stands for Standards Based Linux Instrumentation for Manageability, and consists of a set of standards based Web Based Enterprise Management (WBEM) modules that use the Common Information Model (CIM) standard to gather and provide systems management information, events, and methods to local or networked consumers via an CIM object services broker using the CMPI (Common Manageability Programming Interface) standard. This package provides a set of core providers and development tools for systems management applications. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:46:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:46:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227084] Review Request: maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp - Surefire is a test framework project. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262046.l1QKkj8Z026489@bugzilla.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: maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp - Surefire is a test framework project. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227084 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-26 15:46 EST ------- Here are the links to an updates source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/251/maven-surefire.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/252/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:49:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:49:25 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/?= =?iso-8859-1?q?B/G_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262049.l1QKnPvI026643@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lxtnow at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-26 15:49 EST ------- your %changelog section doesn't quite good. When made change and incrase your release, you must add a new one in changelog. such as : * Mon Feb 26 2007 user_name - 2.14.1-2 - Rename from -ucode to -firmware. * Mon Feb 26 2007 user_name - 2.14.1-1 - Initiale RPM release. I just had a look on your spec file and its looks to need some fix to meet the packaging guidlines. Other comment will within few hours. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 20:54:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:54:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262054.l1QKs3Fk027045@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From jonathansteffan at gmail.com 2007-02-26 15:54 EST ------- Ok. There is a missing buildreq. The spec needs added: BuildRequires: libXinerama-devel http://files.damaestro.us/xgl/ The above packages mockbuild for FC6 (x86) and have been tested. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 21:02:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:02:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262102.l1QL21CI027810@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-26 16:01 EST ------- MUST: ===== 0 rpmlint output is: W: sdcc rpm-buildroot-usage %prep sed -e 's,find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT,find $RPM_BUIL W: sdcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/pic/libsdcc/uin W: sdcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/pic16/libc/ctyp W: sdcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/pic/libm/floorf W: sdcc devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src/pic16/libc/stdl * Package and spec file named appropriately 0 Packaged according to packaging guidelines * License ok * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream * Compiles and builds on devel x86_64 * BR: ok * No locales * No shared libraries * Not relocatable 0 Package owns / or requires all dirs * No duplicate files & Permissions ok * %clean & macro usage OK * Contains code only * %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package * no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files. * no .desktop file required MUST fix: ========= * put all the files under /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src and the .asm files under /usr/share/sdcc/lib/* in a seprate -src subpackage. AFAIK these files are only needed when one wants to look at the innerworkings of the C-library and are not needed for normal development, thus they shouldn't be part of the base package. * Remove the "Requires: gc" from the specfile, gc is a lib and an automatic dependency on the needed .so file will be generated. * We all agree a -devel package is bogus so remove the devel subpackage instead of just commenting it * sdcc's make install installs the docs under /usr/share/sdcc/doc, they should be installed under /usr/share/doc/sdcc-%{version} using %doc Tip: after the "make install" do: mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/doc installed-docs and then to %files add "%doc installed-docs/*" * You must own the sdcc dirs the package create, under %files don't write: %{_libexecdir}/sdcc/* %{_datadir}/sdcc/* But write: %{_libexecdir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/%{name} Then the package will also own the %{_datadir}/sdcc and %{_libexecdir}/sdcc dirs * You must also own %{_datadir}/emacs as that is not a standard dir, easiest way todo this is to just write %{_datadir}/emacs under %files instead of %{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 21:05:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:05:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227083] Review Request: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262105.l1QL5Nf7028042@bugzilla.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: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227083 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 21:14:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:14:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262114.l1QLEIOQ028802@bugzilla.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: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com 2007-02-26 16:14 EST ------- Ugh. The package conserver-client contains a /usr/bin/console also. It was there first, so gotta do something to prevent the namespace collision. I'd probably make /usr/sbin/conmux into /usr/sbin/conmuxd and make /usr/bin/console into /usr/bin/conmux. Question on the Requires: does the base conmux server portion really *require* the client to be installed to function? If not, I'd say drop that hard Requires. A few of the comments should be altered slightly, you have "put in our own initscript and logrotate", but the first file installed is the config file, not the initscript. Note that the conf file getting installed mode 0644 there also eliminates the need for the "adjust perms on main config file" comment and following line. Not really sure what to do about the .pm file, I try not to touch or even think about perl... :) Also, as you update the package from here out, go ahead and bump the package version each time, along with corresponding changelog entries illustrating what's been done -- helps make it clear what's been done when, makes it easier for reviewers to figure out which revision of the package they've got, etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 21:14:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:14:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262114.l1QLEoYC028841@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command Alias: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 16:14 EST ------- (In reply to comment #54) > I fail to comprehend how aggregating within a tarball would be bad, while > aggregating within an ISO file (as Fedora does today) would be acceptable. Because the tarball is what demarcate what is a given software. > I think that if we actually keep a package out of Fedora because of crazy > interpretations such as this then we truly have lost the plot. I am not saying that we should do that, the 2 programs here are clearly distinct (I mean, js code and ntop are distinct programs) so mere aggregation may be the right interpretation. If I recall well, debian people consider that files in the same tarball or package should have compatible licenses, but we are not forced to do the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 21:59:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:59:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195692] Review Request: guichan - Portable C++ GUI library for games using Allegro, SDL and OpenGL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262159.l1QLx78a032124@bugzilla.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: guichan - Portable C++ GUI library for games using Allegro, SDL and OpenGL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195692 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-26 16:59 EST ------- Change owner to wart at kobold.org. The current owner is AWOL. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-February/msg00405.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 21:59:42 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:59:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229910] Review Request: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262159.l1QLxg2D032156@bugzilla.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: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910 ------- Additional Comments From bpeck at redhat.com 2007-02-26 16:59 EST ------- http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux-0-2.484svn.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/bpeck/conmux/conmux.spec conmux renamed to conmuxd console renamed to conmux removed erroneous chmod command. The service conmux status calls console (or conmux now) so the requires on client is valid. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:06:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:06:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262206.l1QM6MtS032746@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-26 17:06 EST ------- I am removing the NEEDSPONSOR flag and assigning the bug to myself, because Patrice has agreed to sponsor you. GOOD: - rpmlint check comes back empty both on source and binary rpms: [wolfy at wolfy iverilog]$ rpmlint iverilog-devel-20070123-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm [wolfy at wolfy iverilog]$ rpmlint iverilog-20070123-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm [wolfy at wolfy iverilog]$ rpmlint iverilog-20070123-3.fc6.src.rpm [wolfy at wolfy iverilog]$ - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. English - source matches latest available upstream version, sha1sum 6b737279fe876e039322a6c31457372073366ec1 verilog-20070123.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86_64), RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions are sane - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs (there are many small text files, but all of them together occupy <150K) - nothing in %doc affects runtime - not a GUI, so no need for .desktop file - devel package ok (contains 2 libs and some examples) - no .la files - no need for any scriptlets - devel requires base package n-v-r So far everything seems fine, tomorrow I'll test the program (did not have time for that today) and most probably end the review. I have noticed that you have not included a couple of the doc files: attributes.txt,extensions.txt,glossary.txt, ivl_target.txt ivlpp.txt, iverilog-fpga.man, tgt-vvp/README.txt, vvp/README.txt, and neither the examples shipped in the vvp directory. Maybe it would be worth to include all those (with the examples in the devel package, just like the already included set of examples) ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:18:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:18:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228969] Review Request: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262218.l1QMIkJS001315@bugzilla.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: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228969 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 17:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > > > better remove the sed script, to source/patch file. Is there any guidelines for > desktop files versioning? I mean, both the file name and the file content should > contain a version number, then there would be a lot of maintaince work. But if > using sed, the code will be less clear. desktop files don't need to have a version. > I don't know if re-define %name and %version and %release is a good idea. It is definitely a bad idea. > Why python source and compiled files are placed in /usr/share/ directory? I > think they should be in /usr/lib/python2.x/site-packages. Only modules to be used by other python applications. If the python files are only used internally by the application the best place is along %{_datadir}/%{name}. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:30:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:30:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262230.l1QMUMUo002937@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 17:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19) > > done. This icon is better than nothing because it is just a question mark and a > CHM doc.. The question mark looks like "I know nothing" instead of "help docs". > And chm is not only for help docs, this is why chmsee-icon.png looks like a book > (though more like a dictionary) A question mark is not necessarily "I know nothing", it may also mean "I have a question". > (In reply to comment #18) > > Why isn't %{?_smp_mflags} used? > > linking problems, don't know how to fix :( Please put a comment saying something along # %%{?_smp_mflags} breaks build. Linking problems? > > Spec URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee.spec > SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee-1.0.0-0.8.beta.src.rpm Another issue is that now that there is something installed in the gnome theme, you should add the gtk-update-icon-cache scriptlet for that theme too (in addition to the one for the hicolor theme). The source doesn't seems to match upstream: b18df276ff8050668ff3da163efe147c chmsee-1.0.0-beta.tar.gz 8ebce73126d94cc646565f38aa94dcc9 ../SOURCES/chmsee-1.0.0-beta.tar.gz Seems like upstream did a new release without changing the tarball name... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:33:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:33:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230161] New: Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices 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=230161 Summary: Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kwizart at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/rt2x00-firmware/rt61-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/rt2x00-firmware/rt61-firmware-1.2-2.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm Description: Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices This firmware allow using Ralink wireless device using the rt61pci module included since 2.6.21rc1 inside the linux kernel. It can also be used since 2.6.18 using the rt2x00 external module and older kernel can use rt61 legacy version... We should ask for proper redistribution permission, this firmware do not provides any documentation, it sould a least bundle permission for redistribution to be accepted on Fedora Extras... Sending a mail to Ralink about this... FE-LEGAL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:34:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:34:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262234.l1QMYpn3003754@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 17:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > grep requirement fixed in autoconf-2.61-7.fc7, but I have no idea why the > timestamp is wrong. As the source matches upstream I'd think we can leave it as > it is. Ok. Just remember to keep it next time. In case you don't already know, youo can use wget -N for that, or spectool -g. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:37:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:37:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262237.l1QMblqt004095@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 17:37 EST ------- Just noticed that %{_datadir}/emacs/ is unowned. Since you already own %{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/ it shouldn't be a problem to own %{_datadir}/emacs/ too. I think that the way you do is the best way, it seems better to me to own those directories than to depend on emacs-common. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:39:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:39:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230164] New: Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices 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=230164 Summary: Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kwizart at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/rt2x00-firmware/rt71w-firmware.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/rt2x00-firmware/rt71w-firmware-1.8-2.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm Description: Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices This firmware allow using Ralink wireless device using the rt73usb module included since 2.6.21rc1 inside the linux kernel. It can also be used since 2.6.18 using the rt2x00 external module and older kernel can use rt73 legacy version... We should ask for proper redistribution permission, this firmware do not provides any documentation, it sould a least bundle permission for redistribution to be accepted on Fedora Extras... Sending a mail to Ralink about this... FE-LEGAL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:41:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:41:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229419] Review Request: glew - The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262241.l1QMfBSa004564@bugzilla.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: glew - The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229419 bruno at postle.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CANTFIX ------- Additional Comments From bruno at postle.net 2007-02-26 17:41 EST ------- I guess I'll have to close this one as the sgi license isn't free software according to the FSF: The "SGI Free Software License B", although its name says "free", is not a Free Software License. It has three major problems. 1. It restricts its patent license to unmodified versions of the software. 2. It terminates if your use of the software infringes copyrights or patents which are not SGI's. This is problematic because it gives SGI grounds to sue you even when you have done nothing to them. 3. The license requires you to inform SGI of legal problems with the software. This violates your privacy rights, and can conflict with professional confidentiality requirements, such as attorney-client privilege. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:43:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:43:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262243.l1QMhmxw004899@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 ajackson at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:44:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:44:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262244.l1QMipxo004965@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From alcapcom at gmail.com 2007-02-26 17:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #25) > Ok. There is a missing buildreq. The spec needs added: > > BuildRequires: libXinerama-devel Strange, it build in mock here without that. Have you make change in %configure? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:55:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:55:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225611] Merge Review: bc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262255.l1QMt3Ir005654@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225611 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 17:55 EST ------- Issues: * Why is there an autotools call? * use %{_bindir} in %files. Suggestions: * use the "official" scriptlet for install-info and remove the .gz. It is just for consistency since this scriptlet is fine. * remove / in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_infodir} * use the dist tag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:56:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:56:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221015] Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262256.l1QMuXZM005778@bugzilla.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: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-26 17:56 EST ------- MUST Items: - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least i386. - MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires. - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. - MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths - MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable - MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: There are no Large documentation files - MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix - MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386. - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane. - SHOULD: No subpackages present. APPROVED! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:58:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:58:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221015] Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262258.l1QMwnWi005921@bugzilla.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: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-26 17:58 EST ------- Follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure for the CVS Request procedure. As we agreed, add me as your co-maintainer. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 22:58:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:58:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262258.l1QMwl79005879@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From alcapcom at gmail.com 2007-02-26 17:58 EST ------- SPEC: http://download.tuxfamily.org/fedoraxgl/SPECS/xorg-x11-server-Xgl.spec SRPM: http://download.tuxfamily.org/fedoraxgl/SRPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xgl-0-0.3.20070102git.fc6.src.rpm Have make changes suggested on comment #21, but have not found how to fix the %post script trick. Any idea? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 23:02:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:02:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225295] Merge Review: autoconf213 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262302.l1QN2Fr9006156@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf213 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225295 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 18:02 EST ------- Please consider keeping the source timestamp too in the future. Anyway it is re-approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 23:03:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:03:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262303.l1QN3Hmi006221@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 ------- Additional Comments From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com 2007-02-26 18:03 EST ------- Really sorry, i haven't notice that this (old) review is not assigned. So i will make the review (ASAP). First comment : pear bug #9712 is close (my patch is merge upstream) and pear 1.5.0 is now available in rawhide, so i think you should swicth back to : Requires: php-pear >= 1:1.5.0 Obsoletes: php-pear-PHPUnix2 No need to a new spec file, i will work on this release for the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 23:03:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:03:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225298] Merge Review: automake14 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262303.l1QN3Zk8006256@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: automake14 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225298 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 18:03 EST ------- No problem, it is not a big deal, just try to do it next time. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 23:14:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:14:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262314.l1QNEHrv006807@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 18:14 EST ------- Issues: * libtool BuildRequires is certainly unneeded * a post scriptlet for the hicolor icon theme is missing * --short-circuit will certainly fail with mv linux/README README.Linux Suggestion: * remove / in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}, $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir} * I would do something like mv linux/README README.Linux in %install -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 23:16:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:16:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262316.l1QNGtfg006998@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-26 18:16 EST ------- Great Work. MUST Items: - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least i386. - MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires. - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. - MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths - MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable - MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: There are no Large documentation files - MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386. - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane. - SHOULD: No subpackages present. APPROVED! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 23:18:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:18:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262318.l1QNI1UD007087@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-26 18:17 EST ------- Follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure for the CVS Request procedure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 23:18:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:18:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221015] Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262318.l1QNIalG007115@bugzilla.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: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 23:19:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:19:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262319.l1QNJ1PK007219@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 23:21:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:21:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262321.l1QNL1hp007339@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vixie-cron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 18:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > That's not review as in guidelines, I'm waiting with fix for whole review. I don't understand exactly what you are meaning here, but comments pointing out issues in packages are perfectly fine in reviews, and should be acted upon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Feb 26 23:27:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:27:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702262327.l1QNRufr007735@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vixie-cron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-26 18:27 EST ------- >From a quick glance at the specfile, I have noticed the following issues: * Prereq should be changed to the appropriate Requires(...) * You should use $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %SOURCEN, but not both. I suggest using %SOURCEN, since it is most common. * rpm macros should be used more. * timestamp of data files should be kept with -p * /etc/pam.d/crond is certainly %config(noreplace) Suggestion: In my opinion, /etc/rc.d/init.d/crond shouldn't be marked as %config. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 01:04:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:04:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195692] Review Request: guichan - Portable C++ GUI library for games using Allegro, SDL and OpenGL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270104.l1R14JPT011111@bugzilla.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: guichan - Portable C++ GUI library for games using Allegro, SDL and OpenGL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195692 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 01:31:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:31:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230164] Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270131.l1R1VEH3012054@bugzilla.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: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230164 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: rt71w- |Review Request: rt71w- |firmware - Firmware for RT71|firmware - Firmware for RT71 |802.11 wireless devices |802.11 wireless devices CC| |lxtnow at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-26 20:31 EST ------- review is coming ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 01:55:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:55:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270155.l1R1twnq012939@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From justin.conover at gmail.com 2007-02-26 20:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #23) > > I was able to build the xgl from 02/07/2007 > > Did you use mock? When I mockbuild this srpm I end up missing > /usr/lib/xorg/modules/xgl/libxglx.so and Xgl then does not work. If you did not > use mock, would you please: > > rpm -qa|grep devel I used "rpmbuild -ba" against the spec file, if there are missing deps it will tell you what you need (buildreqs) and then yum install those. Everything is in FC6/extras except for libxbui but I rebuilt the spec file from FC5 just fine. > > > This is with ati x1400 and beryl is now working. > > How are you starting Xgl? > vi /usr/bin/startxgl #!/bin/sh Xgl :1 -fullscreen -ac -accel xv:pbuffer -accel glx:pbuffer & DISPLAY=:1 exec dbus-launch --exit-with-session gnome-session chmod +x /usr/bin/startxgl vi /usr/share/xsessions/xgl.desktop [Desktop Entry] Encoding=UTF-8 Name=Xgl Comment=Start an Xgl Session Exec=/usr/bin/startxgl Icon= Type=Application > Also, I have made the suggested changes to the spec per comment #21. I don't > want to step on the package owners toes and publish my changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 02:11:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:11:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220393] Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270211.l1R2BUGd013381@bugzilla.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: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393 seefeld at sympatico.ca changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ON_DEV Flag|needinfo?(seefeld at sympatico.| |ca) | ------- Additional Comments From seefeld at sympatico.ca 2007-02-26 21:11 EST ------- I have updated the package to install things into /share/doc/Synopsis-, as opposed to /share/doc/Synopsis. I also updated the spec file to fix a number of the issues you noted. As I plan to make this another release (0.9.1), once you confirm conformance, all I have right now for testing is a snapshot file, with included spec file, at http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/Synopsis-snapshot.tar.gz. Can you work with that to validate ? Thanks ! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 02:44:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:44:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 192436] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xgl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270244.l1R2iffA014426@bugzilla.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: xorg-x11-server-Xgl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192436 ------- Additional Comments From jonathansteffan at gmail.com 2007-02-26 21:44 EST ------- I made no changes to configure. It builds, but does not work without: BuildRequires: libXinerama-devel Also, your latest spec does not include all of the changes from comment #21. a) Remove everything you have from %post. This should be done completely different. b) Name your Source files correctly. c) Update your comment as to why # remove uneeded files d) Comment how you build the source tar. e) Update your %defattr There is more. This is a good start. I will be working on suggested changes here tonight. View http://files.damaestro.us/xgl/xorg-x11-server-Xgl-0-0.3.20070102git.fc6.src.rpm for my changes so far. I understand fedora-xgl-settings is obsolete. A new solution must be setup. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 03:44:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:44:17 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/?= =?iso-8859-1?q?B/G_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270344.l1R3iH2j016891@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-26 22:44 EST ------- So, MUST Fix: release tag doesn't good, from what i written above, it's your second official build for extras review and and correctly set to 2 but, must be followed by distag %{?dist}. MUST Fix: License tag is invalid Just use "Distributable" MUST Fix: Group tag is invalid. Use "System Environment/Kernel" instead of "firmware" SHOULD Fix: BuildRoot tag doesn't quite good. Use %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) instead of %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root Typo: # This is so that the noarch packages only appears for these archs And what about pcc arch ? SHOULD: just for the form, in %build section add comment "#nothing to build" for a clean review. SHOULD: In %install section. use "rm -rf" instead of %{__rm} -rf. same thing, use "install -p -Dm 0644" instead of %{__install} -D -p -m 0644. SHOULD Fix: Before copy a file to the right location, you must create this one by using "mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_lib}/firmware" command. (even if the -D option do the same thing). MUST Fix: Use "%{_lib}/firmware/*.ucode" instead of "/lib/firmware/*.ucode" MUST Fix: %changelog -> see Comment#3. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 03:46:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:46:47 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/?= =?iso-8859-1?q?B/G_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270346.l1R3kliF017047@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-26 22:46 EST ------- typo: it's Comment#4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 03:51:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:51:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230164] Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270351.l1R3pHjL017364@bugzilla.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: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230164 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-26 22:51 EST ------- Just one thing: hardcoded path must not be use. use "%{_lib}/firmware" instead of "/lib/firmware" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 03:52:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:52:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229929] Review Request: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270352.l1R3qNfx017413@bugzilla.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: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229929 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-26 22:52 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > > > I just tried to build this to review it and it fails with: > make: /usr/lib64exec/mecab/mecab-dict-index: Command not found > make: /usr/lib64exec/mecab/mecab-dict-index: Command not found This was due to mecab-config in mecab-devel. I rebuilt 0.94-0.4.pre2 so would you try it? (this version is now in buildsys and mockbuild should catch this version). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 03:59:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:59:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229419] Review Request: glew - The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270359.l1R3xcBK017877@bugzilla.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: glew - The OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229419 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 04:04:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:04:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230161] Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270404.l1R44YJP018170@bugzilla.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: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230161 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: rt61- |Review Request: rt61- |firmware - Firmware for RT61|firmware - Firmware for RT61 |802.11 wireless devices |802.11 wireless devices ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-26 23:04 EST ------- Hardcoded library path shouldn't be use use "%{_lib}/firmware" instead of "/lib/firmware" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 04:05:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:05:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230164] Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270405.l1R45mqI018243@bugzilla.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: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230164 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-26 23:05 EST ------- typo: it's Hardcoded library path -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 04:09:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:09:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230164] Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270409.l1R49ekB018490@bugzilla.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: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230164 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 04:10:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:10:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230161] Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270410.l1R4AUQe018572@bugzilla.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: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230161 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 04:11:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:11:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270411.l1R4Bdvv018650@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-26 23:11 EST ------- The build log if enabled %{?_smp_flags} /bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -DPACKAGE_DATA_DIR=\""/usr/share"\" -DCHMSEE_DATA_DIR=\""/usr/share/chmsee"\" -DPACKAGE_LOCALE_DIR=\""/usr/share/locale"\" -DGLADE_FILE=\"chmsee.glade\" -DBOOKMARK_FILE=\"chmsee_bookmarks\" -DBOOKINFO_FILE=\"chmsee_bookinfo\" -DCHMSEE_NO_LINK=\"chmsee_no_link\" -pthread -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/lib/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/cairo -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/include/freetype2 -I/usr/include/libpng12 -I/usr/include/libglade-2.0 -I/usr/include/libxml2 -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/. -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/commandhandler -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/content -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/dom -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/find -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/gfx -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/gtkembedmoz -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/locale -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/pref -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/webbrwsr -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/string -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/xpcom -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/gtkembedmoz -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1 -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/xpcom -I/usr/include/firefox-2.0.0.1/string -I/usr/include/nspr4 -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables libcppwrapper.la -pthread -lgthread-2.0 -lrt -lglade-2.0 -lgtk-x11-2.0 -lxml2 -lgdk-x11-2.0 -latk-1.0 -lgdk_pixbuf-2.0 -lpng12 -lm -lpangocairo-1.0 -lpango-1.0 -lcairo -lgobject-2.0 -lgmodule-2.0 -ldl -lglib-2.0 -L/usr/lib -lchm -lssl -lcrypto -ldl -L/usr/lib/firefox-2.0.0.1 -lgtkembedmoz -lxpcom -lplds4 -lplc4 -lnspr4 -lpthread -ldl -R/usr/lib/firefox-2.0.0.1 -o chmsee chmsee-main.o chmsee-marshal_main.o chmsee-bookmarks.o chmsee-booktree.o chmsee-chmfile.o chmsee-chmsee.o chmsee-html.o chmsee-link.o chmsee-parser.o chmsee-setup.o chmsee-startup.o chmsee-utils.o libtool: link: cannot find the library `libcppwrapper.la' or unhandled argument `libcppwrapper.la' make[3]: *** [chmsee] Error 1 make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... ar cru .libs/libcppwrapper.a .libs/libcppwrapper_la-gecko_utils.o ranlib .libs/libcppwrapper.a creating libcppwrapper.la (cd .libs && rm -f libcppwrapper.la && ln -s ../libcppwrapper.la libcppwrapper.la) make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/yuan/rpmbuild/BUILD/chmsee-1.0.0-beta/src' make[2]: *** [all] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/yuan/rpmbuild/BUILD/chmsee-1.0.0-beta/src' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/yuan/rpmbuild/BUILD/chmsee-1.0.0-beta' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.25314 (%build) icon scriptlet updated. source tarball updated. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee-1.0.0-0.9.beta.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 04:15:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:15:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225893] Merge Review: hwdata In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270415.l1R4Fl8u019103@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: hwdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225893 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-26 23:15 EST ------- karsten, I think Patrice is right. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 04:25:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:25:47 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/?= =?iso-8859-1?q?B/G_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270425.l1R4PlWW020144@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-26 23:25 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > MUST Fix: License tag is invalid > Just use "Distributable" Please read the firmware discussion on fedora-packaging. > Typo: # This is so that the noarch packages only appears for these archs > And what about pcc arch ? This driver is invalid on PPC. > MUST Fix: Use "%{_lib}/firmware/*.ucode" instead of "/lib/firmware/*.ucode" That's invalid for firmware. /lib is correct. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 04:55:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:55:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270455.l1R4tN1o022482@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-26 23:55 EST ------- Regression: %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT are both used. tclConfig.sh looks good now; Tk and others build fine with it. Fix the buildroot macro and we should be done here. Once this review is finished, I hope we can start discussing a plan on addressing some of the other non-blocking issues that will further clean up the way Tcl and the various extensions are handled in Fedora. (Setting the fedora-review flag back to '?' per the revised review guidelines) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 05:39:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:39:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270539.l1R5dAw2024390@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-27 00:39 EST ------- --------------------------------------- BuildRequires: gecko-devel --------------------------------------- Well, this style of handling gecko dependency is a problem because rpm cannot treat rpath dependency correnctly. * Details: (I use FC-devel so here I write especially on rawhide) - First, /usr/bin/chmsee requires some libraries from firefox, and /usr/bin/chmsee has rpath because the libraries in firefox is not installed under default library path. ---------------------------------------------------- [root at localhost ~]# ldd -r /usr/bin/chmsee | grep firefox libgtkembedmoz.so => /usr/lib/firefox-2.0.0.1/libgtkembedmoz.so (0x007a6000) libxpcom.so => /usr/lib/firefox-2.0.0.1/libxpcom.so (0x00b6d000) libxpcom_core.so => /usr/lib/firefox-2.0.0.1/libxpcom_core.so (0x04ec8000) [root at localhost ~]# objdump --headers --private-headers /usr/bin/chmsee | grep RPATH RPATH /usr/lib/firefox-2.0.0.1 ---------------------------------------------------- - And when you check the libraries' dependency by "rpm -q --requires chmsee", chmsee surely requires libxpcom.so. Then "rpm -q --whatprovides libxpcom.so" returns firefox. Note that rpm only checks the library name and does not check _rpath_ . - Well, firefox 2.0.0.2 is already released and sooner or later 2.0.0.2 will appear on rawhide. - Then I update firefox to 2.0.0.2 and the problem happens. firefox 2.0.0.2 also provides "libxpcom.so" so no conflict occurs between firefox and chmsee according to rpm judgment. However chmsee actually requires "/usr/lib/firefox-2.0.0.1/libxpcom.so" so chmsee won't be launched..... So: * Usually we have to write explicitly (the following is on FC-devel) ------------------------------------------------- Requires: firefox-devel = 2.0.0.1 Requires: firefox = 2.0.0.1 ------------------------------------------------- On FC-5, this is 1.5.0.9 and soon will be 1.5.0.10. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 05:42:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:42:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270542.l1R5g2si024489@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-27 00:42 EST ------- (In reply to comment #22) > So: > * Usually we have to write explicitly (the following is on FC-devel) > ------------------------------------------------- > Requires: firefox-devel = 2.0.0.1 > Requires: firefox = 2.0.0.1 > ------------------------------------------------- This should be: ------------------------------------------------ BuildRequires: firefox-devel = 2.0.0.1 Requires: firefox-devel = 2.0.0.1 ------------------------------------------------ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 05:42:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:42:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270542.l1R5gwBt024539@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-27 00:42 EST ------- Again mistaken... very very sorry... ------------------------------------------------ BuildRequires: firefox-devel = 2.0.0.1 Requires: firefox = 2.0.0.1 ------------------------------------------------ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 05:56:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:56:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226494] Merge Review: tk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270556.l1R5uW1X024926@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226494 wart at kobold.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mmaslano at redhat.com |wart at kobold.org Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-27 00:56 EST ------- All MUSTFIX items fixed. Directory ownership looks ok nw. /Resetting the 'assigned to' field based on the recently adopted review guidelines: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00682.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 05:59:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 00:59:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226573] Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270559.l1R5xRP0024987@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-drivers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226573 ------- Additional Comments From fedora at leemhuis.info 2007-02-27 00:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > > Regarding the bugs: > > - Fixing Bug 199381 would be nice and shouldn't do any harm, even if those > > drivers are are not (yet) packaged in main Fedora -- but I don't consider this > > a blocker (sorry dgilmore -- I'm counting on ajax cooperation in this case). > Until I know that the drivers are actually packaged, I don't see the need to > break the metapackage on sparc. Well, Fedora is not build for Sparc afaics, so no deps will be broken in our tree. But the community guys that are building Fedora for Sparc ask for this -- so I suppose they know what they are doing and have those drivers packaged in their tree, so deps will probably be satisfied there. So when they ask for it I'd say that it is a good sign of collaboration with the community to add this deps, as it doesn't do any harm to us, and saves them the work to adjust this specfile in their tree. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 06:11:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:11:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228969] Review Request: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270611.l1R6BhBe025328@bugzilla.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: wxGlade - A wxWidgets/wxPython/wxPerl GUI designer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228969 ------- Additional Comments From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com 2007-02-27 01:11 EST ------- updated: SPEC : ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/wxglade.spec SRPM : ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/wxglade-0.4.1-3.fc6.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Feb 27 2007 ZC Miao - 0.4.1-3 - Desktop entry do not need version number - remove some comments -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 06:17:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:17:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229929] Review Request: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270617.l1R6HF1E025550@bugzilla.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: mecab-jumandic - JUMAN dictorionary for MeCab https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229929 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-27 01:17 EST ------- Note: this version of mecab can be downloaded directly from under http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/plague-results/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 07:00:46 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:00:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270700.l1R70k7B027072@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-27 02:00 EST ------- Well, * Documentaion - The following documents are encoded in non-UTF8 coding. Please change to UTF-8 ------------------------------------------------------- ChangeLog ISO-8859-1 ------------------------------------------------------- - The following documents may be useful and can be included as %doc ? ------------------------------------------------------- README.utf8 doc/README.html ------------------------------------------------------- - Some documents are for Chinese users. Please mark the documents as %lang(zh_??) %doc ...... (I don't know the different between traditional and simplified Chinese). Well as you need a sponsor, you have to follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored As written as -------------------------------------------------------- The best ways for you to illustrate your understanding of the packaging guidelines are to submit quality packages and to assist with package reviews. -------------------------------------------------------- Usually: - If there are some other review requests you have already sumbitted, I may judge if I can sponsor you by checking other review requests of you. - If not (i.e. this is the only package you sumbitted for now), you have to do a pre-review of other review requests. So, as it seems that currently this is a only package you are to maintain, would you do a pre-review of other person's review requests? The review requests which are still waiting for someone to review can be found from: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&component=Package+Review&component_text=&query_format=advanced&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=CLOSED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=FAILS_QA&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=POST&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&fixed_in_type=allwordssubstr&fixed_in=&qa_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&qa_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=exact&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=exact&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&changedin=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=short_desc&type0-0-0=notsubstring&value! 0-0-0=Merge&field1-0-0=assigned_to&type1-0-0=equals&value1-0-0=nobody%40fedoraproject.org&field2-0-0=bug_status&type2-0-0=notequals&value2-0-0=CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 07:54:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:54:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 220393] Review Request: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270754.l1R7sbN3030777@bugzilla.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: synopsis - Source-code Introspection Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220393 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-27 02:54 EST ------- Umm: * First is the package name "Synopsis" or "synopsis"? There is a confusion between tarball name <-> rpm name <-> documentation directory name * And what is the release? "rpmbuild -ta" does not work. Please fix the release number correctly. Please upload the spec/srpm so that we (reviewers) can simply do "rpmbuild --rebuild " without fixing name, release number etc.. I have to say that only informing tarball is very confusing. Well, it seems that you are upstream so * first please unify name. * and fix the spec file so that we can simply do "rpmbuild -ta" or so. * And please add the soversion to libSynopsis.so -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 08:38:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:38:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270838.l1R8cpE6001528@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-27 03:38 EST ------- here we go with the :SHOULD: part from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines. Conventions for below: OK = it's OK as it is MUSTFIX = there is a problem which needs fixing NA = not available/ does not apply If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it - OK The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available - NA The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - OK, builds in mock for devel/x86_64 - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures - OK, builds in mock for devel/x86_64 and i386 (no ppc to test on) - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example - OK, works as advertised - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. - NA - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - OK - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. - NA There are no blockers so the package is APPROVED. Cristi, unless someone spots something that I have missed (I hope I did not...), you can proceed with CVS request. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 09:05:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:05:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228450] Review Request: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270905.l1R95ILW004249@bugzilla.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: zhcon - A Fast Console CJK System Using FrameBuffer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228450 ------- Additional Comments From zhu at redhat.com 2007-02-27 04:05 EST ------- Updated: http://reciteword.cosoft.org.cn/redhat/zhcon.spec http://reciteword.cosoft.org.cn/redhat/zhcon-0.2.6-3.src.rpm I didn't change the release number for clean. ChangeLog converted to UTF-8, README.utf8 and doc/README.html added, %lang tag added. I already get sponsored, but I will try to review some other packages as your suggestion :) Thank you! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 09:27:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:27:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270927.l1R9R51V006152@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-27 04:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #21) > The build log if enabled %{?_smp_flags} This is not for the fedora package but for upstream. There is no problem for us to disable smp_mflags. However I had a look, and a possibility is that chmsee_LDFLAGS is used incorrectly to specify library link, it should only be for linker options, chmsee_LDADD is for link. So in my opinion, it should be along: chmsee_LDFLAGS = -R$(GECKO_HOME) \ $(AM_LDFLAGS) chmsee_LDADD = \ libcppwrapper.la \ @CHMSEE_LIBS@ \ @CHMLIB_LIBS@ \ @MD5_LIBS@ \ $(GECKO_LIBS) \ $(GECKO_EXTRA_LIBS) It may also be another issue. I have spotted 2 other problems, still for upstream: * $(addprefix is not portable * in the GLIB_GENMARSHAL rules, the files shouldn't be created in $(srcdir), $(srcdir) could be read-only. > icon scriptlet updated. Still missing in %postun Also I think the use of the gnochm icon for mimetype deserves a comment. It is in changelog, but it seems to me that a comment near the Source1 or near the install calls in %install should be there too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 09:48:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:48:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229319] Review Request: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270948.l1R9mIY3007697@bugzilla.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: dekorator - KDE window decoration engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229319 faucamp at csir.co.za changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za 2007-02-27 04:47 EST ------- Thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dekorator Short Description: KDE window decoration engine Owners: faucamp at csir.co.za Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 09:54:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 04:54:19 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/?= =?iso-8859-1?q?B/G_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702270954.l1R9sJgi008036@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-27 04:54 EST ------- Xavier : Being pedantic isn't always the best thing. You use the word "must" in many places, some of which should be "should" instead, and others more importantly, where you are plain wrong. For instance "you must use a %{?dist} tag" is incorrect, and in this case, it's _deliberate_ to not use one, since it allows hardlinking the package across multiple releases. Your only valid comment is the one about the %changelog, but please realize that it's pretty much useless to have multiple entries for the same day, especially if they're so minor. The wrong thing would have been not to increment the release. Packaging rules and guidelines are something really useful, but nothing will ever beat using common sense as much as possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 10:24:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:24:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271024.l1RAOcvO009632@bugzilla.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: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-27 05:24 EST ------- The Description is a bit terse. May I suggest "A wrapper for Exiv2 library to manipulate picture metadata, used by kipi-plugins, digiKam and other kipi host applications." ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 10:30:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:30:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271030.l1RAUxFZ010001@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-27 05:30 EST ------- Ok, I changed it in version tcl-8.4.13-12. We can discuss it by email. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 10:49:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:49:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271049.l1RAnOi6012010@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-27 05:49 EST ------- (In reply to comment #25) > MUST fix: > ========= > * put all the files under /usr/share/sdcc/lib/src and the .asm files under > /usr/share/sdcc/lib/* in a seprate -src subpackage. AFAIK these files are only > needed when one wants to look at the innerworkings of the C-library and are > not needed for normal development, thus they shouldn't be part of the base > package. FIXED. > * Remove the "Requires: gc" from the specfile, gc is a lib and an > automatic dependency on the needed .so file will be generated. FIXED. > * We all agree a -devel package is bogus so remove the devel subpackage instead > of just commenting it > * sdcc's make install installs the docs under /usr/share/sdcc/doc, they > should be installed under /usr/share/doc/sdcc-%{version} using %doc > Tip: after the "make install" do: > mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/doc installed-docs > and then to %files add "%doc installed-docs/*" FIXED. > * You must own the sdcc dirs the package create, under %files don't write: > %{_libexecdir}/sdcc/* > %{_datadir}/sdcc/* > But write: > %{_libexecdir}/%{name} > %{_datadir}/%{name} > Then the package will also own the %{_datadir}/sdcc and %{_libexecdir}/sdcc > dirs FIXED. > * You must also own %{_datadir}/emacs as that is not a standard dir, easiest way > todo this is to just write %{_datadir}/emacs under %files instead of > %{_datadir}/emacs/site-lisp/* > FIXED. The Source URL has also been updated according to the guidelines in the wiki. STRIP=: has also been added to %configure as suggested in #23. The debuginfo package is still created though... Updated spec and srpm files are here: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/sdcc/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 10:56:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:56:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271056.l1RAurxf012718@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: file-roller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751 mcepl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO CC| |mcepl at redhat.com Flag| |needinfo?(bdpepple at ameritech | |.net) ------- Additional Comments From mcepl at redhat.com 2007-02-27 05:56 EST ------- Brian, so what is your conclusion about this bug (theoretical discussions about Source0 URLs standard aside)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 10:59:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:59:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271059.l1RAxjj5012941@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-27 05:59 EST ------- Thanks Christian for pushing electronics applications in Fedora. I maintain the geda suite. Perhaps we might work together to push more and more electronic apps inside. #001 I've seen during the %install /usr/bin/install -c -m . You should preserve timestamps. %{__make} prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} \ bindir=%{buildroot}%{_bindir} \ libdir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \ libdir64=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \ includedir=%{buildroot}%{_includedir} \ mandir=%{buildroot}%{_mandir} \ vpidir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ivl/ \ INSTALL="install -p" install #002 The tarball is mal-packaged. It ships an autom4te.cache/. I'd suggest to rm -rf autom4te.cache in %prep You can delete them by %{__rm} -rf autom4te.cache for f in cadpli driver driver-vpi examples ivlpp libveriuser solaris tgt-fpga \ tgt-null tgt-pal tgt-stub tgt-verilog tgt-vvp vpi vpip vvm vvp; do pushd $f %{__rm} -rf autom4te.cache popd done #003 You shouldn't ship %{_libdir}/*.a in the -devel package Delete them %{__rm} -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/{libveriuser,libvpi}.a #004 # WARNING !!! # %{?_smp_mflags} broken Can you explain in one/two line (in the spec file) why it's broken? #005 I disagree on how %{version} has been filled. "iverilog -v" shows: Icarus Verilog version 0.9.devel ($Name: s20070123 $) You missed the 0.9.XXXXXX I'll rather opt for : %define snapshot 20070123 Name: iverilog Version: 0.9.0.%{snapshot} -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:06:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:06:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271106.l1RB6suq013326@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From paskalis at di.uoa.gr 2007-02-27 06:06 EST ------- OK, all of the issues I saw were addressed with one exception: - The crash that can be seen with a dynamically linked pcre. I have reformatted the patch mentioned in comment #4 to apply in virgin 3.0.6 sources and attach it here. For reference see also https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1621173&group_id=11118&atid=111118 http://bugs.debian.org/404284 http://ijbswa.cvs.sourceforge.net/ijbswa/current/filters.c?r1=1.72&r2=1.73 Other things (informational only): rpmlint is not silent but the things it complains about can be ignored e.g. dozens of E: privoxy non-standard-uid /etc/privoxy privoxy E: privoxy non-standard-gid /etc/privoxy privoxy and a warning W: privoxy incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/privoxy $PRIVOXY_PRG which can be ignored since the variable $PRIVOXY_PRG is defined to privoxy in the init file. Open bugs of the package are the bugs #193159, #198402, and #205011. The first is an init file issue replacing "kill -HUP" with "kill -s HUP" (I can't reproduce the problem locally), the second is an (ongoing?) effort to add IPv6 support and the last one is a SELinux issue about writing in /etc/privoxy. All of those are considered normal or low priority. So, if the patch fixing dynamic pcre issues is applied, this package is approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:07:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:07:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225910] Merge Review: ipv6calc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271107.l1RB7x5I013402@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: ipv6calc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225910 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mmaslano at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-27 06:07 EST ------- Fixed in ipv6calc-0.61-2.fc7. W: ipv6calc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ipv6calc-0.61/ipv6logstats/collect_ipv6logstats.pl /usr/bin/perl W: ipv6calc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ipv6calc-0.61/ipv6logconv/run_analog.sh /bin/sh W: ipv6calc doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/ipv6calc-0.61/ipv6logstats/example_ipv6logstats.sh /bin/sh W: ipv6calc-debuginfo invalid-license GNU GPL version 2 These problems stay, because in doc are example scripts, which has to be executable, also they make the dependency on perl, bash. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:08:33 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:08:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226316] Merge Review: privoxy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271108.l1RB8XYl013484@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: privoxy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226316 ------- Additional Comments From paskalis at di.uoa.gr 2007-02-27 06:08 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148855) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148855&action=view) Proposed patch from upstream to work with current dynamic pcre. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:36:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:36:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271136.l1RBa28F014521@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 ------- Additional Comments From harald at redhat.com 2007-02-27 06:36 EST ------- > What is the rationale for building against the version of cdrtools that's part of the tarball? Removing/Replacing cdrtools from Fedora. The rest was in there for historical reasons :) Should I link statically against a GPL version of cdrtools? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:38:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:38:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271138.l1RBcWBa014623@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 06:38 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ogdi Short Description: Open Geographic Datastore Interface Owners: cbalint at redhat.com Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:38:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:38:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271138.l1RBcjxg014643@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-27 06:38 EST ------- sounds reasonable, fixed in -8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:41:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:41:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271141.l1RBf544014730@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:41:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271141.l1RBfTD8014774@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-27 06:41 EST ------- I would also recommend you to add examples on the iverilog package instead of -devel package. Its size is small and a normal user would not install a -devel package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:46:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:46:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271146.l1RBkZHb014907@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-27 06:46 EST ------- I haven't seen your name appearing in the list of members to be sponsored. Did I miss something? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:50:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:50:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271150.l1RBoNdb015021@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 06:50 EST ------- i did it a bit later. Can re-check now ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 11:57:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:57:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222039] Review Request: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271157.l1RBvcKq015200@bugzilla.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: ogdi - Open Geographic Datastore Interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222039 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-27 06:57 EST ------- You should be sponsored now. I don't know how much time it takes to propagate, and unless I'm wrong there is also some action to be taken to create the branch and add you in owners.list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 12:01:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:01:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271201.l1RC1o4L015352@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-27 07:01 EST ------- I prefer having slashes between the macros for better readability. It shouldn't do any harm as _libdir and _datadir never have relative paths. The rest is fixed in -13 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 12:02:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:02:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271202.l1RC2Oax015384@bugzilla.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: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-27 07:02 EST ------- It's just what is in the README. (: Besides, only digikam uses it, for now, but I'd rather not mention client apps, since that could likely change. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 12:23:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:23:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230161] Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271223.l1RCNKAP016188@bugzilla.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: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230161 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 07:23 EST ------- for this lib macros, check if you have an build error -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 12:30:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:30:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225693] Merge Review: dialog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271230.l1RCU4Qg016426@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dialog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225693 harald at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(mildew at gmail.com) ------- Additional Comments From harald at redhat.com 2007-02-27 07:30 EST ------- so, you want, that I introduce Epoch ... :-/ %define SubVersion 20060221 Version: 1.0 Release: 1.%{SubVersion}svn%{?dist} Epoch: 1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 12:32:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:32:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225762] Merge Review: fonts-hebrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271232.l1RCWJeG016547@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fonts-hebrew https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225762 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 12:35:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:35:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225762] Merge Review: fonts-hebrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271235.l1RCZVxf016814@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fonts-hebrew https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225762 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-27 07:35 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148860) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148860&action=view) Modified SPEC file Had a look at SPEC. Its written using old packaging guidelines.I have created a patch for you. Use this patch and generate a new release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 12:41:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:41:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271241.l1RCfenb017639@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vixie-cron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529 atkac at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mmaslano at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From atkac at redhat.com 2007-02-27 07:41 EST ------- Complete output from rpmlint. I commented out uninteresting lines W: vixie-cron summary-ended-with-dot The Vixie cron daemon for executing specified programs at set times. W: vixie-cron invalid-license distributable W: vixie-cron no-url-tag W: vixie-cron conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/pam.d/crond #W: vixie-cron conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/rc.d/init.d/crond E: vixie-cron executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/rc.d/init.d/crond #E: vixie-cron non-readable /etc/pam.d/crond 0600 #E: vixie-cron non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/cron 0700 #E: vixie-cron non-standard-dir-perm /etc/cron.d 0700 #E: vixie-cron setuid-binary /usr/bin/crontab root 06755 #E: vixie-cron setgid-binary /usr/bin/crontab root 06755 #E: vixie-cron non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/crontab 06755 #W: vixie-cron service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/crond #W: vixie-cron incoherent-init-script-name crond Some issues in specfile - standardize buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - use Requires instead of Prereq - call make with %{?_smp_mflags} (be sure if package has been built correctly. If not, remove this flag) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 12:53:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:53:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225662] Merge Review: crontabs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271253.l1RCrDYI019056@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: crontabs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225662 atkac at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mmaslano at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From atkac at redhat.com 2007-02-27 07:53 EST ------- output from rpmlint: W: crontabs summary-ended-with-dot Root crontab files used to schedule the execution of programs. W: crontabs no-url-tag W: crontabs no-documentation => nothing interesting... - standardize buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 12:59:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:59:08 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/?= =?iso-8859-1?q?B/G_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271259.l1RCx8KZ019719@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 07:59 EST ------- Hi Matthias, indeed, there's some things can be ignored in review and from rpmlint ouput error. > That's invalid for firmware. /lib is correct. for %{_lib}, it works for me and no build error. > Typo: # This is so that the noarch packages only appears for these archs > And what about pcc arch ? > > This driver is invalid on PPC. So, this : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179260 should be read. > For instance "you must use a %{?dist} > tag" is incorrect, and in this case, it's _deliberate_ to not use one, since it > allows hardlinking the package across multiple releases. I understand that. also the fact it's a noarch package. Now i wonder if it's accepted in CVS build procedure. > Your only valid comment is the one about the %changelog, but please realize that > it's pretty much useless to have multiple entries for the same day, especially > if they're so minor. The wrong thing would have been not to increment the release. I a little bit agree with you about that (i don't make multiple entries for the same day when i build my own packages) but, it's important for review to avoid confusions and to follow the work (changes, modification, ...) of the owner of the package. however, I maintains that the Group tag isn't good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:07:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:07:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225662] Merge Review: crontabs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271307.l1RD7ewi020140@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: crontabs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225662 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-27 08:07 EST ------- No url tag -> no upstream Warning in package are irrelevant. Fix in crontabs-1.10-14.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:08:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:08:54 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/?= =?iso-8859-1?q?B/G_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271308.l1RD8sdZ020189@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-27 08:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > > That's invalid for firmware. /lib is correct. > > for %{_lib}, it works for me and no build error. But %_lib = lib64 on x86_64, so your firmware file will end up in the wrong place, since it needs to be in /lib/firmware on x86_64, not in /lib64/firmware, pretty much like the kernel modules needs to be in /lib/modules/... > > This driver is invalid on PPC. > > So, this : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179260 > should be read. It's not that is doesn't build or work on ppc. It's just that it doesn't make sense because it's a firmware for hardware which is only to be found in x86 and x86_64 hardware (actually, almost certainly only x86_64 hardware, but since you can install an x86 OS on it, it also makes sense to have available for the x86 OS). > > For instance "you must use a %{?dist} > > tag" is incorrect, and in this case, it's _deliberate_ to not use one, since it > > allows hardlinking the package across multiple releases. > > I understand that. also the fact it's a noarch package. > Now i wonder if it's accepted in CVS build procedure. Of course it is. You seem to be confusing a lot of "mandatory" vs. "suggested" packaging points. > > Your only valid comment is the one about the %changelog, but please realize that > > it's pretty much useless to have multiple entries for the same day, especially > > if they're so minor. The wrong thing would have been not to increment the release. > > I a little bit agree with you about that (i don't make multiple entries for the > same day when i build my own packages) but, it's important for review to avoid > confusions and to follow the work (changes, modification, ...) of the owner of > the package. You are right, but one should realize that this is pretty much irrelevant. > however, I maintains that the Group tag isn't good. It's a work in progress. Some specific packaging rules for firmwares are being discussed right now. As of this very instant, it's the correct one. It might change, in which case I'll change it too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:14:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:14:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271314.l1RDE2Fq020463@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 ------- Additional Comments From majain at redhat.com 2007-02-27 08:14 EST ------- bitmap-fonts-0.3-5.1.2.fc7 has the following things fixed... (In reply to comment #1) > Random notes: > * rpmlint output: > W: bitmap-fonts invalid-license distributable > W: bitmap-fonts no-url-tag > W: bitmap-fonts-cjk invalid-license distributable > W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-url-tag > W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-documentation > > * It seems that the Lucida fonts are not free software. See the LU_LEGALNOTICE > in the package. > > * As this is actually three different set of fonts, the version (0.3) is quite > arbitrary. Also, at least ucs-fonts has released a newer version in 2006, while > the version in bitmap-fonts is from 2003. > > * Release is complicated (5.1.1) for no real reason. Should be changed to > integer value (6?). FIXXED > * BuildRoot should be changed to > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) FIXED > * In the "cjk" subpackage summary, CJK should be spelled with capital letters. FIXED > * "Prereq" should be replaced by "Requires" (see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#tags) FIXED Others - added the dist tag. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:15:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:15:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271315.l1RDFeKw020546@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 ------- Additional Comments From majain at redhat.com 2007-02-27 08:15 EST ------- Hi Roozbeh, How do we handle the LU_LEGALNOTICE issue? And how do we solve the no-url-tag & no-documentation issues? Thanks, Mayank -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:16:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:16:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271316.l1RDGUS9020606@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 majain at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(roozbeh at farsiweb.i | |nfo) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:33:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:33:22 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/?= =?iso-8859-1?q?B/G_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271333.l1RDXMj5021286@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 08:33 EST ------- > But %_lib = lib64 on x86_64, so your firmware file will end up in the wrong > place, since it needs to be in /lib/firmware on x86_64, not in /lib64/firmware, > pretty much like the kernel modules needs to be in /lib/modules/... indeed. > It's not that is doesn't build or work on ppc. It's just that it doesn't make > sense because it's a firmware for hardware which is only to be found in x86 and > x86_64 hardware (actually, almost certainly only x86_64 hardware, but since you > can install an x86 OS on it, it also makes sense to have available for the x86 OS). OK ;-) > You seem to be confusing a lot of "mandatory" vs. "suggested" packaging points. A lil' bit, you don't explicitly comment on you fisrt post the use of many thing that doesn't match with packaging guidlines and it's why I put myself questions ;-) > It's a work in progress. Some specific packaging rules for firmwares are being > discussed right now. As of this very instant, it's the correct one. It might > change, in which case I'll change it too. ok, i'll follow this discussion. So, if we agree with all things from this pacakge, a full review can be done ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:35:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:35:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271335.l1RDZQJp021353@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 08:35 EST ------- Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/iverilog.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/iverilog-0.9.20070123-5.src.rpm - clean junks from tarball - exlude static library - smp build seems fine - use snapshot instead of cvsver macro - follow package n-v-r from fedora standard (In reply to comment #9) > Thanks Christian for pushing electronics applications in Fedora. I maintain the > geda suite. Perhaps we might work together to push more and more electronic apps > inside. > > #001 > I've seen during the %install /usr/bin/install -c -m . You should preserve > timestamps. > > %{__make} prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} \ > bindir=%{buildroot}%{_bindir} \ > libdir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \ > libdir64=%{buildroot}%{_libdir} \ > includedir=%{buildroot}%{_includedir} \ > mandir=%{buildroot}%{_mandir} \ > vpidir=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ivl/ \ > INSTALL="install -p" install updated. > > #002 > The tarball is mal-packaged. > It ships an autom4te.cache/. > > I'd suggest to rm -rf autom4te.cache in %prep > > You can delete them by > %{__rm} -rf autom4te.cache > > for f in cadpli driver driver-vpi examples ivlpp libveriuser solaris tgt-fpga \ > tgt-null tgt-pal tgt-stub tgt-verilog tgt-vvp vpi vpip vvm vvp; do > pushd $f > %{__rm} -rf autom4te.cache > popd > done i did it. olso '.cvsignore; are cleaned, verifyed UTF-8 stuff and if files contain tab mixage with spaces. > > #003 > You shouldn't ship %{_libdir}/*.a in the -devel package > Delete them > %{__rm} -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/{libveriuser,libvpi}.a i excluded tham from %file devel. > > #004 > # WARNING !!! > # %{?_smp_mflags} broken > Can you explain in one/two line (in the spec file) why it's broken? smp seems to be fine. re-enabled. > #005 I disagree on how %{version} has been filled. > > "iverilog -v" shows: > Icarus Verilog version 0.9.devel ($Name: s20070123 $) > > You missed the 0.9.XXXXXX updated. right. wasnt sure to do 0.9 or not. > I'll rather opt for : > %define snapshot 20070123 > > Name: iverilog > Version: 0.9.0.%{snapshot} updated that macro. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:36:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:36:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271336.l1RDaIh3021412@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 08:36 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > I would also recommend you to add examples on the iverilog package instead of > -devel package. Its size is small and a normal user would not install a -devel > package. olso fixed in -5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:39:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:39:00 -0500 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BBug_230096=5D_Review_Request=3A_iwlwifi-firmwa?= =?iso-8859-1?q?re_-_Microcode_for_Intel=C2=AE_PRO/Wireless_3945_A/?= =?iso-8859-1?q?B/G_network_adaptors?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271339.l1RDd0KN021625@bugzilla.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: iwlwifi-firmware - Microcode for Intel? PRO/Wireless 3945 A/B/G network adaptors https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230096 ------- Additional Comments From matthias at rpmforge.net 2007-02-27 08:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > So, if we agree with all things from this pacakge, a full review can be done ? If you see anything in the package that is mandatory to change or fix, you can just say so now. But for the complete review and possible approval of the package, it's best to wait for the outcome of the firmware packaging discussions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:42:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:42:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 194276] Review Request: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271342.l1RDgbWm021933@bugzilla.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: kdeaccessibility: KDE accessibility tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194276 than at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED ------- Additional Comments From than at redhat.com 2007-02-27 08:42 EST ------- it's now comitted in CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:43:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:43:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230161] Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271343.l1RDh4A8022023@bugzilla.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: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230161 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 08:43 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License is Distributable OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum OK - BuildRequires isn't required OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + - rpmlint output: SRPM: E: hardcoded-library-path -> can be ignored RPM : E: hardcoded-library-path -> can be ignored OK - build in mock (FC-6 and FC-devel). OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:47:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:47:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230164] Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271347.l1RDlBt0022329@bugzilla.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: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230164 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 08:47 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License is Distributable OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum OK - BuildRequires isn't required OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + - rpmlint output: SRPM: E: hardcoded-library-path -> can be ignored RPM : E: hardcoded-library-path -> can be ignored OK - build in mock (FC-6 and FC-devel). OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:53:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:53:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271353.l1RDrDQc023044@bugzilla.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: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 ------- Additional Comments From harald at redhat.com 2007-02-27 08:53 EST ------- http://people.redhat.com/harald/downloads/cdrkit/cdrkit-1.1.2-3/ -- 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 bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:54:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:54:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271354.l1RDseSZ023263@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-27 08:54 EST ------- * Still many warnings from desktop-file-install (not blocking) /home/dumas/src/fc-cvs/tn5250/devel/xt5250.desktop: missing encoding (guessed UTF-8) /home/dumas/src/fc-cvs/tn5250/devel/xt5250.desktop: key "Categories" string list not semicolon-terminated, fixing /var/tmp/tn5250-0.17.3-13-root-dumas//usr/share/applications/fedora-xt5250.desktop: warning: boolean key "Terminal" has value "0", boolean values should be "false" or "true", although "0" and "1" are allowed in this field for backwards compatibility /var/tmp/tn5250-0.17.3-13-root-dumas//usr/share/applications/fedora-xt5250.desktop: warning: non-standard key "XClassHintResName" lacks the "X-" prefix /var/tmp/tn5250-0.17.3-13-root-dumas//usr/share/applications/fedora-xt5250.desktop: warning: file contains key "MapNotify", usage of this key is not recommended, since it has been deprecated * after rpmbuild -ba, rpmbuild -bi --short-circuit fails with: + mv linux/README README.Linux mv: cannot stat `linux/README': No such file or directory Instead of mv you could do cp -pf linux/README README.Linux -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 13:57:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:57:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271357.l1RDvrkd023661@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-27 08:57 EST ------- Also your icon cache scriptlets may be right, but to be on the safe side, and for consistency, I suggest using those from the guidelines, at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 14:07:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:07:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271407.l1RE7Fdf024586@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-27 09:07 EST ------- Follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure for the CVS Request procedure. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 14:16:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:16:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271416.l1REGMPe025416@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 09:16 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: iverilog Short Description: Icarus Verilog is a verilog compiler and simulator Owners: cbalint at redhat.com, cgoorah at yahoo.com.au Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 14:16:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:16:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271416.l1REGisu025485@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 14:32:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:32:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271432.l1REWfqc026787@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 ------- Additional Comments From denis at poolshark.org 2007-02-27 09:32 EST ------- > The rest was in there for historical reasons :) That was my guess :-) Yes, I would suggest to compile statically against cdrecord-devel. This implies adding a BuildRequires on cdrecord-devel, and using the '--with-scglib=sys' configure option. As i said, the partial cdrtools snapshot that is shipped with cdrdao is pretty old, and Fedora's cdrtools contains many patches that cdrdao can benefit from. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 14:33:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:33:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230164] Review Request: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271433.l1REXaIC026850@bugzilla.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: rt71w-firmware - Firmware for RT71 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230164 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 09:33 EST ------- Typo : + - licences and Doc are requesting -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 14:37:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:37:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230161] Review Request: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271437.l1REbfVM027278@bugzilla.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: rt61-firmware - Firmware for RT61 802.11 wireless devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230161 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 09:37 EST ------- Typo : - OK - License file included in package + + - licences and Doc are requesting -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 14:52:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:52:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271452.l1REq130028327@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 ------- Additional Comments From harald at redhat.com 2007-02-27 09:52 EST ------- If cdrtools is removed completly, I have to pull in the cdrtools source in the cdrdao src.rpm. Did you consider using cdrkit? http://people.redhat.com/harald/downloads/cdrkit/cdrkit-1.1.2-3/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 15:09:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:09:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 200236] Review Request: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271509.l1RF9hwR029740@bugzilla.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: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200236 than at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|gauret at free.fr |than at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From than at redhat.com 2007-02-27 10:09 EST ------- i have merged the changes, added subpackage -extras and removed -xmms and -atlantikdesigner. It's already commited into CVS. The new kdeaddon-3.5.6-2.fc7 is built in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 15:10:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 10:10:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 200236] Review Request: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271510.l1RFAHOP029831@bugzilla.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: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200236 than at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|than at redhat.com |gauret at free.fr -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:06:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:06:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225743] Merge Review: expect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271606.l1RG69Rn001533@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: expect https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225743 mitr at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mitr at redhat.com |vcrhonek at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:17:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:17:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271617.l1RGHBKH003087@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 cbalint at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |230223 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:32:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:32:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271632.l1RGW7Ol004803@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 ------- Additional Comments From mdehaan at redhat.com 2007-02-27 11:32 EST ------- Ok, change the license to ISC and I'll approve this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:40:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:40:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271640.l1RGeMJA005771@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 Bug 227646 depends on bug 230223, which changed state. Bug 230223 Summary: glXGetCurrentContext symbol missing in -devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230223 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |DUPLICATE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:40:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:40:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227083] Review Request: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271640.l1RGeSEW005854@bugzilla.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: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227083 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-27 11:40 EST ------- Here are the links to the updated source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/253/maven-shared.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/254/maven-shared-1.0-4jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:41:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:41:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230228] New: Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions 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=230228 Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: imlinux at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec: http://mmcgrath.net/~mmcgrath/perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5/perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5.spec SRPM: http://mmcgrath.net/~mmcgrath/perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5/perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3-1fc7.src.rpm Description: Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:40:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:40:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271640.l1RGerjs005920@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 matthias at rpmforge.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |228177 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:44:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:44:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230228] Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271644.l1RGi1bZ006311@bugzilla.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-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230228 jeff at ocjtech.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:50:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:50:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271650.l1RGoqiw007050@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 ------- Additional Comments From dcantrell at redhat.com 2007-02-27 11:50 EST ------- Done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:53:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:53:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271653.l1RGr90g007545@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 mdehaan at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|mdehaan at redhat.com |dcantrell at redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 16:54:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:54:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271654.l1RGsZRG007803@bugzilla.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: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 ------- Additional Comments From maxime.carron at fedoraproject.org 2007-02-27 11:54 EST ------- pong! (I'm busy at school. Just one more test!) W: symlink-should-be-relative I can't do anything else. If the link is relative, it links to the building environment (/var/tmp/pypar2-1.2-1.fc6.maxca-root-builder/usr/share/pypar2/src/main.py). And actually, due to macro, it is relative (I think). PS : I still need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 17:03:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:03:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225963] Merge Review: kdelibs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271703.l1RH3eCN009244@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: kdelibs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225963 ------- Additional Comments From than at redhat.com 2007-02-27 12:03 EST ------- it's now fixed in kdelibs-3_5_6-2_fc7. New package has been built in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 17:06:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:06:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230228] Review Request: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271706.l1RH63xU009732@bugzilla.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-Crypt-PasswdMD5 - Provides interoperable MD5-based crypt() functions https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230228 jeff at ocjtech.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-27 12:06 EST ------- * source files match upstream (MD5 & SHA1) 368205b1be8c0d4f807afe25d6fbd1ad Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3.tar.gz 368205b1be8c0d4f807afe25d6fbd1ad Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3.tar.gz.1 887782eb7fd1568ce9514f46156a08c415c26fdf Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3.tar.gz 887782eb7fd1568ce9514f46156a08c415c26fdf Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3.tar.gz.1 * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (fc6 i386, fc7 i386). * package installs properly. * rpmlint says (after applying patch below): W: perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5 mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 1) Can be ignored/cleaned up later. * %check present; Test code runs successfully. * no shared libraries are present * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers * no unversioned .so file * no pkconfig file * no libtool .la droppings. I noticed that the README appears to be in ISO-8859-1, but since it's PGP signed it's not possible to change it to UTF-8. So, assuming the following patch is applied, the package is APPROVED. --- perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5.spec.save 2007-02-27 10:41:07.000000000 -0600 +++ perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5.spec 2007-02-27 10:47:55.000000000 -0600 @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@ %prep %setup -q -n Crypt-PasswdMD5-%{version} +%{_bindir}/iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 -o PasswdMD5.pm.new PasswdMD5.pm && mv PasswdMD5.pm.new PasswdMD5.pm +%{__sed} -i -e 's/ISO-8859-1/UTF-8/' PasswdMD5.pm %build %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor @@ -43,5 +45,5 @@ %{_mandir}/man3/* %changelog -* Tue Feb 27 2007 Mike McGrath - 1.3.1 +* Tue Feb 27 2007 Mike McGrath - 1.3-1 - Initial Packaging -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 17:06:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:06:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271706.l1RH6lLm009864@bugzilla.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: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-27 12:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > pong! > (I'm busy at school. Just one more test!) > > W: symlink-should-be-relative > I can't do anything else. Hint: ------------------------------------------------ rm %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} ln -s %{_datadir}/%{name}/src/main.py %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} ------------------------------------------------ This symlink uses absolute path for main.py One of the easiest way to create relative symlink is: ------------------------------------------------- rm %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} pushd %{buildroot}%{_bindir} ln -sf `find .. -name main.py` %{name} popd -------------------------------------------------- This creates a symlink as pypar2 -> ../share/pypar2/src/main.py -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 17:24:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:24:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271724.l1RHOCKq012154@bugzilla.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: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 12:24 EST ------- I tried this way: ls -s ../..%{_datadir}/%{name}/src/main.py %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} it's work but symlink point like that : /usr/bin/pypar2 -> ../../usr/share/pypar2/src/main.py -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 17:26:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:26:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271726.l1RHQQT6012454@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-27 12:26 EST ------- Just another thought from reading this review request: Would it be possible to get the changes that are needed for this package added to the fedora vigra package? ie, patch in our version until upstream finishes merging them in and then we can drop the patch. Then, this package wouldn't need to use a local vigra copy... Or possibly get the upstream vigra folks to merge in their VCS system the patches, and we can move our vigra version to a snapshot? Would it be worth mailing some vigra/hugin maintainers to comment here on which way forward they would prefer? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 17:26:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:26:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229490] Review Request: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271726.l1RHQwB1012514@bugzilla.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: pypar2 - graphical frontend to par2cmdline https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229490 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 12:26 EST ------- typo: it's "ln -s" not "ls -s" -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 17:42:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:42:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271742.l1RHg6HV013524@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 12:42 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License is GPL OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Requires isn't required OK - Patch is correctly applied and work. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch (i386). OK - Package preserves timestamps on files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files present and don't affect runtime. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package has a correct %changelog section. OK - Mock build on i386 and x86_64 (FC-6 and FC-devel) OK - RPMLINT is silent on both RPM and SRPM. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should package latest version ---- APPROVED by me ---- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 17:44:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:44:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271744.l1RHiK8i013676@bugzilla.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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 17:46:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:46:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271746.l1RHkUlJ013912@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-27 12:46 EST ------- Okay, this has already been fixed in 6.8 which I hope to include in Fedora 7. Is that sufficient, or do you need to see the backport (or a coreutils-6.8 package..)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 17:58:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:58:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226479] Merge Review: tcl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271758.l1RHwSUQ014744@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tcl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226479 ------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-27 12:58 EST ------- I recently discovered that bz #227200 is really a multilib problem with Tcl. That is, it's not possible to install both x86_64 and i386 versions of Tcl extensions simultaneously due to the symlink and missing %{_libdir}/tcl8.4 from the package path. I'll try to get some guidance from the mailing lists if this multilib problem needs to be fixed as part of the merge review or not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 18:16:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:16:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271816.l1RIGQY8015991@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 ------- Additional Comments From Fedora at FamilleCollet.com 2007-02-27 13:16 EST ------- REVIEW * source files match upstream: fca4887ed95996a4b18e0cb0b8ff8130 PHPUnit-3.0.5.tgz* package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible (BSD). * latest version is being packaged (3.0.5) * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (FC6). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides are sane: php-pear(pear.phpunit.de/PHPUnit) = 3.0.5 php-pear-PHPUnit = 3.0.5-1.fc7 => final Requires are sane: see comment * %check is not present; => don't owns the directories it creates * don't own directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (pear install) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. Samples works well. So MUST - remove Conflicts (add Obsoletes) - Requires: php-pear(PEAR) >= 1.5.0 - own %{pear_testdir}/%{pear_name} Should - Remove (build safely, even in mock without) # Need to allow installation in channel://pear.phpunit.de/ mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{pear_phpdir} cp -r %{pear_phpdir}/.channels $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{pear_phpdir}/.channels - simplify under doc (remove PHPUnit subdir) %doc %{pear_name}-%{version}/docdir/%{pear_name}/%{pear_name}/* - only uninstall old PHPunit on upgrade %post if [ $1 -gt 1 ] ; then ... fi -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 18:17:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:17:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271817.l1RIHpKv016170@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 Fedora at FamilleCollet.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |Fedora at FamilleCollet.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 18:19:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:19:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 196837] Review Request: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271819.l1RIJB8j016372@bugzilla.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: php-pear-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests Alias: pear-PHPUnit3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196837 Fedora at FamilleCollet.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 18:20:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:20:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271820.l1RIKsP0016745@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 Bug 225235 depends on bug 203536, which changed state. Bug 203536 Summary: split a -devel package? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203536 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 18:22:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225655] Merge Review: coreutils In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271822.l1RIM8V4016953@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: coreutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225655 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-27 13:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #24) > Okay, this has already been fixed in 6.8 which I hope to include in Fedora 7. > Is that sufficient, or do you need to see the backport (or a coreutils-6.8 > package..)? Do as you like. In case you keep things as is, please comment out the %check with a comment stating that it should be fixed in 6.8. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 18:23:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:23:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271823.l1RINZcm017234@bugzilla.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: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-27 13:23 EST ------- I know. But their web site / sf repository is a bit more informative. If not for the presence of "exif" in the description, I would have had absolutely no idea what's the purpose of the library, especially since "exiv" rang no bells. In my opinion, the presence of "picture metadata" and/or "digikam" would be better hints. My suggestion was based on info retrieved from upstream's web site. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 18:43:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227081] Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271843.l1RIhl3Q020528@bugzilla.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: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227081 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |nsantos at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-27 13:43 EST ------- Here are the links to an updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/256/maven-jxr.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/257/maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 19:06:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230250] New: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits 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=230250 Summary: Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: notting at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/gtkhtml38.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/notting/review/gtkhtml38-3.12.3-2.src.rpm Description: GtkHTML is a lightweight HTML rendering/printing/editing engine. It was originally based on KHTMLW, but is now being developed independently of it. This package implements the GtkHTML 3.8 API, for packages who cannot use newer versions of GtkHTML. The gtkhtml api & abi changed in the development tree with the move from libgnomeprint to gtkprint. Various apps may not be able to cope with the change, either due to the scope of the printing changes required, or the fact that they depend on other libraries not yet ported to GtkPrint. Hence, a compat library for them to build and run against. See also: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401970 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 19:11:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:11:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227082] Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271911.l1RJBwUU022420@bugzilla.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: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227082 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 19:26:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:26:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229377] Review Request: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271926.l1RJQcui023665@bugzilla.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: latexmk - a make-like utility for LaTeX documents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229377 ------- Additional Comments From Jerry.James at usu.edu 2007-02-27 14:26 EST ------- While I'm waiting, I decided to go ahead and create an /etc/latexmk.conf showing all of the configuration parameters with their default values, commented out. The new spec file and source RPM are at the same URLs as before. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 19:27:15 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:27:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271927.l1RJRFr6023739@bugzilla.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: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-27 14:27 EST ------- OK, everything looks good: No complaints from rpmlint. Buildroot is good. The license is in each package. (And I'll reiterate: normally this wouldn't be an issue, but these packages don't seem to be related to each other in name, and users shouldn't have to go figuring out what other packages are built from the SRPM just to find the license.) The compiler flags look good, and the debuginfo package is now complete. APPROVED If I'm reading the account system correctly, you require sponsorship. Go ahead and apply for cvsextras and fedorabugs and I'll get you set up. -- 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 Tue Feb 27 19:33:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:33:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271933.l1RJXUH3024263@bugzilla.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: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250 jeff at ocjtech.us changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jeff at ocjtech.us ------- Additional Comments From jeff at ocjtech.us 2007-02-27 14:33 EST ------- Since this is a compatibility package, shouldn't it be named compat-gtkhtml38? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 19:38:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:38:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271938.l1RJcMi9024655@bugzilla.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: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-27 14:38 EST ------- OK, I'm convinced, and will include it in the next pkg update (after someone comits to doing a pkg review). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 19:49:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271949.l1RJntN0025463@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-27 14:49 EST ------- Balint Cristian, you are not yet sponsored ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 19:54:05 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:54:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230250] Review Request: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271954.l1RJs56W026118@bugzilla.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: gtkhtml38 - GtkHTML 3.8 compatibility library & devel bits https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230250 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-27 14:53 EST ------- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines implies gtkhtml38, like openssl096b. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 19:57:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:57:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271957.l1RJvPiB026558@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 14:57 EST ------- i am sposored in cvsextras group in my fedora account. (have another package already) I set flag '?' on fedora cvs, for this bz, is there more things to do for creation of CVS ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 19:58:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:58:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227082] Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271958.l1RJwrRE026813@bugzilla.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: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227082 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-27 14:58 EST ------- Here are the links to an updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/259/maven-scm.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/260/maven-scm-1.0-0.1.b3.2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 19:59:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:59:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221027] Review Request: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702271959.l1RJxVtZ026956@bugzilla.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: LabPlot - Data Analysis and Visualization https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221027 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-27 14:59 EST ------- Updated Spec URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot.spec SRPM URL: http://tux.u-strasbg.fr/~chit/LabPlot/LabPlot-1.5.1.5-4.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 20:01:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:01:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227080] Review Request: maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp - Doxia is a content generation framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272001.l1RK1UHm027332@bugzilla.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: maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp - Doxia is a content generation framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227080 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tbento at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 20:06:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:06:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229657] Review Request: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272006.l1RK6ICo028452@bugzilla.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: iverilog - Icarus Verilg is a verilog compiler, simulator. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229657 ------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au 2007-02-27 15:06 EST ------- I see. For some reason, I received a mail for your request. Forget it. All you need to do now is wait :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 20:15:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:15:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221015] Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272015.l1RKFTeG029923@bugzilla.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: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015 ------- Additional Comments From johan at x-tnd.be 2007-02-27 15:15 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ksplash-engine-moodin Short Description: Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop Owners: johan at x-tnd.be, cgoorah at yahoo.com.au Branches: FC-5 FC-6 devel InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 20:21:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:21:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 221015] Review Request: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272021.l1RKLmKn031154@bugzilla.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: ksplash-engine-moodin - Moodin is a splash engine for KDE Desktop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221015 cgoorah at yahoo.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 20:37:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:37:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272037.l1RKbBt3000985@bugzilla.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: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2007-02-27 15:37 EST ------- Well, just to push you a bit 1. There is a typo error in %clean: rm -rf $FPM_BUILD_ROOT 2. mock build fails with: checking for gawk... gawk checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking for kde-config... not found configure: error: The important program kde-config was not found! Please check whether you installed KDE correctly. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.91758 (%build) => kdelibs is missing as BR. Adding that, build fails again, this time with: checking for vsnprintf... yes checking for snprintf... yes checking for X... configure: error: Can't find X includes. Please check your installation and add the correct path s! error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6018 (%build) => kdelibs-devel is missing as BR So, please add kdelibs-devel as BR, correct the FPM into RPM and I'll try to do a review. It would the first one for a package which relies on pkgconfig, so please be kind to me :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 20:41:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:41:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272041.l1RKfWA7001371@bugzilla.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: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-27 15:41 EST ------- crud, I coulda sworn I did a mock build prior to package submission... oh well. (: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 20:53:59 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:53:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230071] Review Request: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272053.l1RKrxwE003394@bugzilla.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: libkexiv2 - A library to manipulate EXIF/IPTC information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230071 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-27 15:53 EST ------- Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/libkexiv2.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/libkexiv2-0.1.1-2.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Feb 27 2007 Rex Dieter 0.1.1-2 - fix %%clean - update %%description - BR: kdelibs-devel -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 20:57:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:57:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230262] New: Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS) 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=230262 Summary: Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (JSS) Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rcritten at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rcritten/jss.spec SRPM URL: http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/built/rpm_review/rcritten/jss-4.2.4-1.src.rpm Description: Java Security Services (JSS) is a java native interface which provides a bridge for java-based applications to use native Network Security Services (NSS). NOTE: JSS is a JCE-provider and needs to be signed in order to perform certain operations. Even though gcj doesn't enforce the signing requirement many of the JSS self-tests fail miserably, presumably due to deficiencies in gcj. The reason for requiring signing is to provide a level of confidence that the implemented provider you are using to perform your crypto operation is trusted. http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/guides/security/crypto/CertForm.txt "Only CSPs signed by a trusted entity can be plugged into the JCE framework." So the bottom line is that this JSS will work for some operations (like SSL client and server) but not for key generation and signing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 21:06:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:06:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272106.l1RL6TTS004716@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-27 16:06 EST ------- Looks good, A few last issues: 1) The changelog entry (and your last comment) about "Disable creation of debuginfo package" is plain wrong. sdcc contains native binaries (the compiler, linker et all). for which we want a debuginfo package, thus the debuginfo is a good thing. The problem was that it was an empty package. The changelog should read something like: "Disable stripping of binaries, so that we get a proper debuginfo package" 2) Remove the empty %doc from the "%files src" 3) The descripion of the -src subpackage is a bit vague, try explaning that these are the actual sources of the c-library for the devices and that these sources are meant for reference of how the c-library works. Also I see that you need a sponsor, that is not a problem I can sponsor you, but before doing that I would like todo one more package review with you, so can you submit another package for review and post the bugzilla id here, then I'll reviw it and assuming that goes well then sponsor you. Ralf, do you agree with the modifications I've requested for the package? And what do you think of the sdcc-src subpackage? Maybe sdcc-sources or sdcc-libc-sources is better? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 21:29:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:29:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227080] Review Request: maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp - Doxia is a content generation framework In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272129.l1RLTnM7006271@bugzilla.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: maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp - Doxia is a content generation framework https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227080 tbento at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-27 16:29 EST ------- Here are the links to an updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/261/maven-doxia.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/262/maven-doxia-1.0-0.1.a7.3jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 22:21:57 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:21:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226813] Merge Review: zsh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272221.l1RMLv5K010077@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226813 james.antill at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From james.antill at redhat.com 2007-02-27 17:21 EST ------- zsh-4.2.6-4.fc7 is now building which should solve most of the above. The big one still there is usage of RPM_SOURCE_DIR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 22:25:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:25:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230275] New: Review Request: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator 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=230275 Summary: Review Request: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ingvar at linpro.no QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/fedora-extras-commit/varnish.spec SRPM URL: http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/fedora-extras-commit/varnish-1.0.3-3.src.rpm Description: Hello. After some work packaging up varnish, I would appriciate a review, so that it can enter Fedora Extras. Varnish is a state-of-the-art, high-performance HTTP accelerator. It is targeted primarily at the FreeBSD 6 and Linux 2.6 platforms, and will take full advantage of the virtual memory system and advanced I/O features offered by these operating systems. Typically, you would use one box running Varnish instead of 12 loadbalanced boxes running Squid. (And yes, that's a live example). Documentation and additional information about Varnish is available on the following web sites: http://www.varnish-cache.org/ Official web site http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/ Developer site and wiki This is my first package for Fedora Extras, so please be gentle. I probably need a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 22:35:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:35:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230275] Review Request: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272235.l1RMZqVh011339@bugzilla.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: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230275 ingvar at linpro.no changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 22:44:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:44:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230282] New: Review Request: trang - Multi-format schema converter based on RELAX NG 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=230282 Summary: Review Request: trang - Multi-format schema converter based on RELAX NG Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mcepl at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/trang.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/trang-20030619-2.src.rpm Description: Trang converts between different schema languages for XML. It supports the following languages: RELAX NG (both XML and compact syntax), XML 1.0 DTDs, W3C XML Schema. A schema written in any of the supported schema languages can be converted into any of the other supported schema languages, except that W3C XML Schema is supported for output only, not for input. Trang can also infer a schema from one or more example XML documents. Trang is constructed around an RELAX NG object model designed to support schema conversion. For each schema language supported for input, there is an input module that can convert from the schema language into this internal object model. Similarly, for each schema language supported for output, there is an output module that can convert from the internal object model in the schema language. Trang aims to produce human-understandable schemas; it tries for a translation that preserves all aspects of the input schema that may be significant to a human reader, including the definitions, the way the schema is divided into files, annotations and comments. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 22:56:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:56:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 206814] Review Request: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272256.l1RMuOMk013157@bugzilla.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: hugin - Frontend for Panorama Tools, similar to PTAssembler, PTGui or Open for Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206814 ------- Additional Comments From pablo.dangelo at web.de 2007-02-27 17:56 EST ------- Hi all, I'm the primary author and maintainer of hugin. Frankly I don't see the problem with the inclusion of the vigra source in hugin. Except for a very small pieces of code related to calling libtiff/jpeg/png, all code in vigra is in the headers and compiled statically into all programs anyway. I would favor just including hugin as it is. Once upstream vigra supports all features required by the current hugin, I will switch hugin to using the upstream vigra release. Also all other static libraries included in hugin might change anytime and are not suitable for linking by any other applications. They are just there to help keeping the code organized. Therefore hugin does not install any header or lib*.a/so files in the system diretories. ciao Pablo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 23:46:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:46:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225244] Merge Review: amtu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272346.l1RNkEf5018618@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: amtu https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225244 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-27 18:46 EST ------- I'm ok with adding the comment per comment #12 to the spec. I would add that the next time IBM mails you a new source, you might reply and ask them to consider releasing to the sourceforge site as well. ;) That was the last blocker I see here... I will go ahead and APPROVE this package now, and you can close it rawhide once you have added that comment and the new version has been pushed out. Thanks for your attention Steve, and thanks for assisting with this review Toshio. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 23:46:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:46:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226190] Merge Review: netatalk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272346.l1RNkurK018676@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: netatalk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226190 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(mbarabas at redhat.co | |m) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 23:50:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:50:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226192] Merge Review: net-snmp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272350.l1RNoGZq018791@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: net-snmp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226192 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-27 18:50 EST ------- Just a note that I've talked it over with the packaging committee and such and the concensus is that there's no problem with executable documentation as long as it doesn't cause additional dependencies, which it doesn't in this case. So we're good there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Feb 27 23:54:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:54:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226191] Merge Review: netpbm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702272354.l1RNsuXc018976@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: netpbm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226191 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-27 18:54 EST ------- This should be fun. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 00:22:25 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:22:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280022.l1S0MPuW020099@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-27 19:22 EST ------- This package cannot be accepted as is; there are still must fix issues. rpmlint is not silent. And overall many other things to check. Here we go: * there is a huge pile of patches. Can't some of them be submitted upstream? I have some remarks on some of them: - dhcp-3.0.5-ldap-configuration.patch: is the last chunk really needed? Is this patch from fedora or was it found somwhere else? and has it been submitted upstream? - dhcp-3.0.5-client.patch: the comment should explain what this patch is about. There seems to be very specific fedora things mixed up with new features, and these new features seem to be diverse. Maybe this patch could be split? - first chunk of dhcp-3.0.5-common.patch is very dubious (there are other places with similar dubious code). Most of the patch corrects compile-time warning, but there is also a patch for a man page describing new features. Shouldn't this part be split out and put in the patch where the features are added? - dhcp-3.0.5-dhcpctl.patch dhcp-3.0.5-dst.patch, dhcp-3.0.5-fix-warnings.patch, dhcp-3.0.5-minires.patch dhcp-3.0.5-omapip.patch are mostly build fixes. Shouldn't those patches be grouped together? - dhcp-3.0.5-extended-new-option-info.patch has a new script in the beginning. Is it really clean to have it mixed with the remaining? - dhcp-3.0.5-includes.patch mixes build fixes, and different new features (seems that some are in extended-new-option-info, others in dhcp-3.0.5-client.patch - libdhcp4client and timeouts patches seems clean to me, although it seems to me that they should be merged. Has them been submitted upstream? - dhcp-3.0.5-server.patch seems clean too me, but there should be a comment describing what is done in this patch. Has this been submitted upstream? To summarize it seems to me that the patches should be grouped such that each new feature is in one patch and there is a patch containing all the build fixes. * Regarding the patch dhcp-3.0.5-Makefile.patch, wouldn't it be better to override the LFLAGS make variable instead of patching? And why are all those link flags added? What is the aim of the dhcp-3.0.5/minires/Makefile.dist patch? Is libdst really needed by something? The changelog mentions bugs I am not allowed to view for those 2 items... * setting RPM_OPT_FLAGS to RPM_OPT_FLAGS with other options is ugly. Don't do that spec, won't be legible. * there are many places where rpm macros should be used, for sysconfdir and also others. You should also make sure that in the code sysconfdir value is used. * use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} consistently * keep timestamps for data files, even those shipped in the srpm * the ln -s in scriptlet for man pages seems wrong. What is it for? * libdhcp4client-devel should Requires: pkgconfig * Why is -fvisibility=hidden used by default? * In my opinion /etc/rc.d/init.d/* shouldn't be marked as %config * dhcp should not depend on perl * -devel should requires main package with version-release Suggestion: use %defattr(-,root,root,-) I reset the flag to ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 00:25:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:25:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226813] Merge Review: zsh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280025.l1S0PBaD020172@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226813 kevin at tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(james.antill at redha| |t.com) | ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-27 19:25 EST ------- 1. The buildroot you are using is the one that didn't get approved a few weeks ago. Hopefully however this will all be moot soon, as their is a proposal up to make buildroot back to a reccomendation with several acceptable prefered values. 2. rpmlint on this version says: E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/checkmail 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/checkmaile 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/harden 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/hardene 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/run-help 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/run-helpe 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zcalc 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zcalce 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zkbd 0644 E: zsh non-executable-script /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zkbde 0644 Your 'sed -ie' should be 'sed -i' ? (it's creating the e ending files) Also, those should be mode 755? Since they look like executable scripts? E: zsh use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR Would be nice to fix this... E: zsh use-tmp-in-%postun Not sure what this is about... E: zsh wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/checkmaile "/usr/local/bin/zsh" E: zsh wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/run-helpe "/usr/local/bin/zsh" E: zsh wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/zsh/4.2.6/functions/zcalce "/usr/local/bin/zsh" The sed -ie issue. ;) W: zsh dangerous-command-in-%postun chown Not sure how else to do that... W: zsh hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/. W: zsh hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/. W: zsh hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.. W: zsh hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.. W: zsh hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/../skel/.zshrc W: zsh hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/.zshrc W: zsh hidden-file-or-dir /etc/skel/./.zshrc Your "%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/skel/.*" doesn't seem right. How about "%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/skel/.zshrc" ? W: zsh mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 71, tab: line 107) Still might be nice to fix. W: zsh patch-not-applied Patch1: zsh-4.0.6-make-test-fail.patch Might be nice to remove. W: zsh prereq-use fileutils grep /sbin/install-info The use of PreReq is deprecated. In the majority of cases, a plain Requires is enough and the right thing to do. Sometimes Requires(pre), Requires(post), Requires(preun) and/or Requires(postun) can also be used instead of PreReq. I think in this case you can ignore fileutils and grep, but install-info will need to have Requires(post) and Requires(preun). See: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-47896da5fb2662d75deefeb9ba75145a398515db for more info. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 00:37:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:37:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280037.l1S0bH02020525@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 19:37 EST ------- update: Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-8.src.rpm In an update please notice srpm that this as a complete repack of upstram gdal to a license safe fedora gdal source tarball. I explained every things in detail in PROVENANCE.TXT-fedora inside the tarball. Is this acceptable ? (we did so like this on xmms e.g) Is there a similar procedure for this kind of cases when need repack source? (In reply to comment #45) > Well, for -8: > > * rpmlint > - some rpmlint complaint: > ------------------------------------------------------- > E: gdal-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/gdal-1.4.0/alg/gdal_tps.cpp > W: gdal-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm > /usr/src/debug/gdal-1.4.0/frmts/jpeg/gdalexif.h > ------------------------------------------------------- > perhaps permisson issue fixed all. > > * python scripts in %{_bindir} > - byte-compiled files are not needed and please %exclude them. > ("Unnecessary Byte compilation" section of > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python ) excluded. > > * man files triage > - Please "triage" man files according to the corresponding binaries. > It seems that some man files should be installed in -python subpackage. sorted out by their correct place. > > * License > - LGPL codes seem to be included > -------------------------------------------------------- > ./ogr/ogrsf_frmts/ili/iom/LICENSE.lgpl (and around this file) this plugin is removed from source acording to -fedora tarball > ./ogr/ogrsf_frmts/shape/LICENSE.LGPL (and around this file) ^^^^ hmm, authors problem. If its still unacceptable i remove olso plugin. please (overcomment) > ./pymod/gdal2xyz.py (and around this file) ^^^ didnt see nothing. (please overcomment) > ./pymod/samples/histrep.py ^^^ didnt see nothing. (please overcomment) > -------------------------------------------------------- > - Note: not used for fedora package, however having different > license: > -------------------------------------------------------- > ./swig/php/php_osr.h (and around this file) - PHP 2.02 > -------------------------------------------------------- removed whole php folder, acording to -fedora tarball > - Well, there are lots of "TO_RESOLVE" issues written on PROVENANCE.TXT. > We can leave as it is expecting that upstream would solve these issues?? > Especially, the license of the files under ./data is unclear. > > * ogdi sorted out each piece and removed those in a new tarbal repack. > - As ogdi passed the review, would you enable ogdi again? ogdi enabled. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 00:40:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:40:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280040.l1S0epAW020656@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 19:40 EST ------- remark: As tarball is 100% same as upstream tarball except some removed files, i didnt touch any other files inside tarball, so in this case in a separate manner i added inside the spec a separate patch to fix the compile process becouse those missing files due to uncompilable thing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 00:43:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:43:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280043.l1S0h7Bg020747@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 19:43 EST ------- sorry the right path is: Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-9.src.rpm so its -9 indeed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 00:48:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:48:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280048.l1S0mDUd020870@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 19:48 EST ------- Further fixed grass. Tested its functionality deeper, looks fine now, with specific fedora compile time optimization disabled. I can leave now disabled RPM_OPT_FLAGS until i post mainstream patch to avoid overflows. update: Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.3-6.src.rpm libGL.so is fixed mainstream. Please make sure you have mesa-libGL-devel-6.5.2-6.fc7, not sure yet if -6 is aviable in this very moment, maybe have to wait to propagate to download.fedora.redhat.com I olso updated gdal bz. /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 00:49:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:49:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280049.l1S0n9bB020892@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 19:49 EST ------- oh no, sory i mistake: Spec URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass.spec SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.3-6.src.rpm its about -9 version ! SRPM URL: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/grass-6.2.3-9.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 00:52:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 19:52:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 227646] Review Request: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280052.l1S0qQDw020976@bugzilla.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: grass - GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227646 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-27 19:52 EST ------- an small nit: >But grass still can be very-very fine even without gdal. ^^^^^ this is not true. Trying to disable it from grass hit over an impossible count number of how many times gdal is called from the source code. So basicaly its hardcoded into. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 02:47:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:47:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280247.l1S2l8ic026081@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-27 21:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #27) > Looks good, > > A few last issues: > 1) The changelog entry (and your last comment) about "Disable creation of > debuginfo package" is plain wrong. sdcc contains native binaries (the > compiler, linker et all). for which we want a debuginfo package, thus the > debuginfo is a good thing. The problem was that it was an empty package. > The changelog should read something like: "Disable stripping of binaries, > so that we get a proper debuginfo package" Right, the changelog is wrong. > 2) Remove the empty %doc from the "%files src" > 3) The descripion of the -src subpackage is a bit vague, try explaning that > these are the actual sources of the c-library for the devices and that these > sources are meant for reference of how the c-library works. > > Also I see that you need a sponsor, that is not a problem I can sponsor > you, but before doing that I would like todo one more package review with > you, so can you submit another package for review and post the bugzilla > id here, then I'll reviw it and assuming that goes well then sponsor you. I don't feel able to sponsor anybody, because the ACL issues disable me from being able to fulfil the tasks I consider to a sponsor's obligations :( > Ralf, do you agree with the modifications I've requested for the package? And > what do you think of the sdcc-src subpackage? Well, I'd not have requested a 'src' package, because I don't see any use for the sources anyway, ... but this is an issue upstream should take care about. In same boat, is this package shipping the a target's library's *.o's in parallel to libraries (*.lib, *.a). Normally this doesn't make any sense, ... but this is an issue upstream should take care about. > Maybe sdcc-sources or > sdcc-libc-sources is better? Hmm, I'm not sure. sdcc-libc-sources sounds like the most "self-explanatory" package name to me, but this is a matter of personal preference. Technically, I see directory ownership issues between *-src and the main package (IMO, *-src must require the main package). Finally, I don't think the "BR: byacc" is right. It probably should be "bison". AFAIS, the toplevel configure seems to be wanting to enforce bison, but seems to fail on this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 03:26:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:26:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280326.l1S3QIq3027695@bugzilla.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: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 ------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com 2007-02-27 22:26 EST ------- Hey Michael. Sorry for the delay here. ;( I did some testing here on my x86_64 box, running the latest rawhide. ecryptfs-utils-9-1 kernel-2.6.20-1.2949.fc7.x86_64 Trying: cd /tmp mkdir secret mount -t ecryptfs /secret /secret Unable to get the version number of the kernel module. Please make sure that you have the eCryptfs kernel module loaded, you have sysfs mounted, and the sysfs mount point is in /etc/mtab. This is necessary so that the mount helper knows which kernel options are supported. Enabling passphrase-mode only for now. Passphrase: Verify Passphrase: Cipher 1) Twofish 2) CAST5 3) CAST6 4) Blowfish 5) AES-128 6) AES-192 7) AES-256 8) Triple-DES Selection [AES-128]: 7 Attempting to mount with the following options: ecryptfs_cipher=aes ecryptfs_key_bytes=32 ecryptfs_sig=dba5ed7952a1184d So, the module wasn't loaded and it didn't autoload it. I did a manual 'modprobe ecryptfs' and then tried again. It seems to work, but I don't see anything with df, and looking in dmesg I get: mount.ecryptfs[4322] general protection rip:3226c5e4b9 rsp:7fffa5c67a80 error:0 mount.ecryptfs[4568] general protection rip:3226c5e4b9 rsp:7fff15962c10 error:0 I'll try some more testing with ppc and i386 soon. If you could spin a new -2 release addressing the issues in the last comment, we can try and get this moved forward. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 04:14:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:14:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226813] Merge Review: zsh In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280414.l1S4EZU9030568@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: zsh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226813 ------- Additional Comments From james.antill at redhat.com 2007-02-27 23:14 EST ------- Argh. the sed had been sed -i -e ... but then I merged it, for some stupid reason. I changed the skel listing to skel/.z*, which should fix that problem. The functions are supposed to be sourced, so they don't need to be executable. I added reqs. -5 should be comming out of the build system soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 04:36:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:36:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226191] Merge Review: netpbm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280436.l1S4aTb2032380@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: netpbm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226191 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-27 23:36 EST ------- First off, here's the rpmlint output; most of it seems pretty easy. W: netpbm summary-ended-with-dot A library for handling different graphics file formats. W: netpbm-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development tools for programs which will use the netpbm libraries. W: netpbm-progs summary-ended-with-dot Tools for manipulating graphics files in netpbm supported formats. Trivial to fix. W: netpbm invalid-license freeware W: netpbm-debuginfo invalid-license freeware W: netpbm-devel invalid-license freeware W: netpbm-progs invalid-license freeware It's tough to summarise the multitude of netpbm licenses; I'm not sure if "freeware" is the proper thing to use or not. I'll see what spot has to say. Newsflash: spot says no, but something like: License: Assorted licenses, see %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/copyright_summary would be OK, assuming that that file gets added to the package. E: netpbm obsolete-not-provided libgr E: netpbm-devel obsolete-not-provided libgr-devel E: netpbm-progs obsolete-not-provided libgr-progs I believe these should just go away. No Fedora release has ever had libgr as far as I can tell. E: netpbm-progs only-non-binary-in-usr-lib This is due to the four palm*.map files. I wonder why these aren't under /usr/share since they shouldn't be arch-dependent. W: netpbm-progs file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/pgmminkowski.1.gz A quick run through iconf should fix this up. E: netpbm configure-without-libdir-spec This isn't a standard configure script, so this is OK E: netpbm hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/lib* This is actually documented in the spec, and is OK. So, the first fun question is: where do those tarballs come from? Upstream doesn't seem to produce any tarballs, so I guess the ones in the package are made from svn export. You should provide information on generating those tarballs; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#RevisionControl I'm guessing something like: svn export https://netpbm.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/netpbm/release_number/10.35.0 netpbm-10.35 was used, except that the above produces something a bit different from what's in netpbm-10.35.l1.tar.bz2. And I've no idea where netpbmdoc-10.35.l1.tar.bz2 comes from. The changelog indicates that these have bits removed due to license issues, which is fine but it should be made clear, perhaps with a simple script that does the work. There seems to be some good license information in doc/copyright_summary that really should be in the pacakge. This doesn't seem to be the latest version (that seems to be either 10.35.23 or 10.37.03 depending on which branch you want to follow). But I'm sure rebasing right now isn't a great idea, although it would be nice to carry fewer than 17 patches. There's no need to test RPM_BUILD_ROOT against "/" in %clean and %install. I tried a parallel make but it dies pretty quickly; this should be commented. This package includes a static library, which it shouldn't without a good reason. (And if it really needs to, it needs to be in a -static subpackage.) I'll attach a patch which fixes up the trivial rpmlint warnings, fixes License:, nukes the obsoletes, runs iconv on the errant manpage, fixes buildroot cleaning and drops the static library. This leaves the "only-non-binary-in-usr-lib" complaint as the only remaining one to worry about. I'm afraid I can't help with the upstream source bits. Review: X Can't check source against upstream. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. ? license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X license text included in package. O latest version is not being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (don't need to list perl explicitly) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: netpbm-10.35-11.fc7.x86_64.rpm libnetpbm.so.10()(64bit) netpbm = 10.35-11.fc7 = /sbin/ldconfig libnetpbm.so.10()(64bit) netpbm-devel-10.35-11.fc7.x86_64.rpm netpbm-devel = 10.35-11.fc7 = libnetpbm.so.10()(64bit) netpbm = 10.35-11.fc7 netpbm-progs-10.35-11.fc7.x86_64.rpm netpbm-progs = 10.35-11.fc7 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl libX11.so.6()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libnetpbm.so.10()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libpng12.so.0(PNG12_0)(64bit) libtiff.so.3()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) netpbm = 10.35-11.fc7 perl >= 1:5.0 perl(Cwd) perl(English) perl(Errno) perl(Fcntl) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Spec) perl(File::Temp) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(strict) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries present; ldconfig called properly. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * no pkgconfig files. X a static library is presesnt. * no libtool .la droppings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 04:38:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:38:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226191] Merge Review: netpbm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280438.l1S4clAB032559@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: netpbm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226191 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2007-02-27 23:38 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148895) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148895&action=view) Suggested specfile patch fixing several issues. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 04:41:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:41:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226195] Merge Review: newt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280441.l1S4fTkH032763@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: newt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226195 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 04:47:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:47:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230275] Review Request: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280447.l1S4l7iJ000712@bugzilla.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: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230275 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lxtnow at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 23:47 EST ------- After a first look on your spec file: ------ * The packager tag (even commented) SHOULDN'T be in spec file. * Buildroot tag SHOULD be http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28Packaging%29#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1 * Some of BuildRequires are redundant as they already installed from development tools and based installed packages (such as gcc, automake, autoconf, patch, libtoll and gcc-c++) all can be drop. * Requies: i don't really sure that kernel version can be added as requires especially the kernel 2.6 is already included as default kernel version for FC6 and more. * vendor tag SHOULDN'T be use in spec file. * Group tag of %package -n %{lib_name} SHOULD be System Environment/Librairies insteas of System Environment/Daemons. * Summary tag SHOULD be revisited. (such as %{name} library) * BR and Requires for -libs and -libs-devel packages: same things as above. * Description -n %{lib_name} SHOULD be revisited (such as, %{lib_name} contains librairies files for %{name}) * Summary tag of %package -n %{lib_name}-devel SHOULD be revisited. (such as development librairies for %{lib_name}. * Group tag of %package -n %{lib_name}-devel SHOULD be "Development/Librairies instead" instead of "System Environment/Daemons" * url tag in -devel isn't necessary can be remove. * -devel Requires is missing and it SHOULDN't be. SHOULD be present : Requires: %{lib_name} = %{version}-%{release} * %description of -devel package SHOULDN be something like : "The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for developing applications that use %{name}." instead. ---- %prep ---- * The use of iconv can be improve by using pushd to enter and popd to exit directories. This fact can reduce the complexity of the iconv command (including option and redirection command). Here is a way that you can use: ----------------------------- pushd bin for i in varnishlog varnishtop varnishd \ varnishstat varnishhist varnishncsa ; do iconv -f iso-8859-2 -t utf-8 $i/$i.1 > $i/$i.1.utf8 rm -f $i/$i.1 && mv $i/$i.1.utf8 $i/$i.1 done popd iconv -f iso-8859-2 -t utf-8 man/vcl.7 > man/vcl.7.utf8 rm -f man/vcl.7 && mv man/vcl.7.utf8 man/vcl.7 ----------------------------- ---- %build ---- * autogen.sh script SHOULDN'T be use if the configure file is present and work. * From make commande, using %{?_smp_mflags} can improve the procedure and doesn't affect no-smp. ---- %install ---- * the %{makeinstall} should not be used if the "make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p"" functions and it is the case. see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28Packaging%29#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002 * From strip command, you SHOULD comment the use of and add -p option to keep timstamps to files. ---- The use of: ---- mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} and %{__install} -m 0644 INSTALL %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/INSTALL %{__install} -m 0644 LICENSE %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE %{__install} -m 0644 README %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README %{__install} -m 0644 ChangeLog %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ChangeLog %{__install} -m 0644 redhat/README.redhat %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.redhat and %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/INSTALL %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.redhat %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ChangeLog ---- SHOULDN'T be used. Docs SHOULD be add in %doc in %files section such as "%Doc README COPYING ChangeLog". It's automaticaly installed in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}. * You don't need to explicit write each files in %files section. use %{_sbindir}/ instead. use %{_mandir}/man1/*.1.gz instead. use %{_mandir}/man7/*.7.gz instead. use %{_libdir}/*.so.* instead. use %{_libdir}/*.so instead. * "*.la" files SHOULDN'T be include in -devel subpackage. if for some reason its really require ( for full work), You should add -statics subpackage. Can be remove by using: find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/ -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' * Scriptlets seems to miss some options and arguments. see : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28script%29 * "/etc" can be replace by its macros %{_sysconfdir}. ---- %changelog ---- please add a empty line between each of them. ----- reflexion : use should think about the naming of -libs and -libs-devel subpackag by renaming subpackage as follow, lib%{name} and lib%{name}-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 04:47:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:47:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226641] Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280447.l1S4l6hV000705@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226641 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |notting at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-27 23:47 EST ------- MUST Items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines *** Package is an agglomeration of 29 source tarballs. I'm not going to tell you to split it; so it's OK with me, even if the name doesn't match a particular upstream tarball. - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK - License - MIT/X11 (albeit with many copyright holders ) - License field in spec matches - *** Should be changed to 'MIT/X11' (to match other X packages) or 'MIT' (to pacify rpmlint). - License file included in package *** Please include the various module copying. Yes, this is a mess. I suggest in the build loop adding a: mv COPYING COPYING-${dir%%-*} and adding a %doc */COPYING* directive. - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK (that was fun) - BuildRequires correct - OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - OK - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - *** Should require pkgconfig. - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - *** A Requires on pkgconfig should handle %{_libdir}/pkgconfig - No rpmlint output. - *** Source rpmlint: W: xorg-x11-proto-devel invalid-license The Open Group License See above. W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel These aren't coming back, so it's OK with me. However, it's safer to add a version for the last version of each. W: xorg-x11-proto-devel mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 89, tab: line 73) Feel free to fix if you want. Binary rpmlint: W: xorg-x11-proto-devel invalid-license The Open Group License See above. E: xorg-x11-proto-devel obsolete-not-provided XFree86-devel E: xorg-x11-proto-devel obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-devel Since this was a package split, this package alone does not provide the functionality of xorg-x11-devel, etc. (no libX11, libXext, etc.) So this should be OK. E: xorg-x11-proto-devel no-binary Not a bug. SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK - Should have sane scriptlets. - OK - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - didn't check - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) *** Bug 229336 should be handled. Adding a simple: %doc randrproto-*/randrproto.txt damageproto-*/damageproto.txt along with a "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/doc" in %install should handle it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 04:54:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:54:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230275] Review Request: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280454.l1S4sO6l001138@bugzilla.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: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230275 ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-27 23:54 EST ------- typo: it's not use should think about... it's, you should think about... typo1: Docs should be add... -> Docs should be added... typo2: no-smp -> no-smp-machine typo3: The use of iconv can be improve... -> The use of iconv can be improved... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 04:54:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 23:54:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226641] Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280454.l1S4sdKP001167@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226641 notting at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 05:12:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:12:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228255] Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280512.l1S5Ctso002333@bugzilla.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: grub2 - grub next generation tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228255 cr33dog at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cr33dog at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From cr33dog at gmail.com 2007-02-28 00:12 EST ------- I have not performed many reviews, so I may miss things. It appears that you need a sponsor - I will be unable to sponsor you. If you haven't yet, look here for more info: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored *Source0 should contain the full URL *Is there a reason for the duplicate Patch1 and Patch2 and the commented lines in the %prep section? *rpmlint output: W: grub2 summary-ended-with-dot GRUB 2 - the Grub Unified Boot Loader. W: grub2 non-standard-group System Enviroment/Base W: grub2 setup-not-quiet W: grub2 patch-not-applied Patch2: grub2-program-name-tranform-i386-pc.patch *add "%{?dist}" to Version if this is going in more than one branch. *can you use "make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install" or "make DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT install" instead of %makeinstall? (see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002) Building in mock hasn't completed yet - I'll post the result in the morning. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 05:19:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:19:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228255] Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280519.l1S5J2u8002565@bugzilla.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: grub2 - grub next generation tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228255 ------- Additional Comments From cr33dog at gmail.com 2007-02-28 00:19 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148896) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148896&action=view) mock build log (fedora-6-i386-core) Failed to build in mock. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 05:33:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:33:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228255] Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280533.l1S5XLkY002907@bugzilla.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: grub2 - grub next generation tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228255 ------- Additional Comments From jerone at gmail.com 2007-02-28 00:33 EST ------- Your build system is missing "autoreconf" which I believe is in the autoconf package. I'll get changes to the grub spec file out shortly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 06:05:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:05:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225765] Merge Review: fonts-japanese In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280605.l1S65Q11003710@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fonts-japanese https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225765 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 06:25:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:25:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228255] Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280625.l1S6PDwg004229@bugzilla.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: grub2 - grub next generation tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228255 ------- Additional Comments From jerone at gmail.com 2007-02-28 01:25 EST ------- I've updated the spec file to reflect a lot of your suggestions. Added ====== * Source0 now points to a full url * fixed up issues from rpmlint * fixed duplicate patch, grub2-program-name-tranform-i386-pc.patch should have been grub2-program-name-tranform-powerpc.patch *can you use "make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} Couldn't Add ============ *chaning %makeinstall. Actually this will not work with the grub 2 build system. Do I need to make autoconf a depenency? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 06:56:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 01:56:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280656.l1S6ud6S004967@bugzilla.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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-28 01:56 EST ------- http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/aqsis/aqsis.spec http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/aqsis/aqsis-1.2.0-1.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm Buildlog: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/aqsis/aqsis-1.2.0_2.log http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/aqsis/aqsis-1.2.0.log I enabled x86_64 since a proper solution seems to be found. See: http://www.aqsis.org/xoops/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1394&forum=3 I can provides co-maintainship with Tobias if needed... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 07:31:20 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:31:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228255] Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280731.l1S7VKLs005810@bugzilla.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: grub2 - grub next generation tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228255 ------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi 2007-02-28 02:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Do I need to make autoconf a depenency? If you use autoreconf during build, yes, the build dependency is needed. Depending on what stuff autoreconf itself needs to run, you may actually need to pull in automake or libtool instead of autoconf. By the way, running autoreconf (if it's needed) would be better done in %prep, not %build. Potential reviewers will also find it easier to track progress if you bump the release tag *always* when making changes, even during the review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 07:54:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:54:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225639] Merge Review: cdrdao In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280754.l1S7spVr006413@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cdrdao https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225639 ------- Additional Comments From denis at poolshark.org 2007-02-28 02:54 EST ------- Is the plan for FC-7 to remove cdrtools completely then ? If that's the case, it might make sense to indeed compile against the cdrtools snapshot shipped with cdrdao, at least as a temporary solution. I have not tried to build cdrdao against cdrkit, at least not yet. It's unclear to me how much work would be required to make this happen, and i think it would fall outside the scope of this review anyway (unless it's a straightforward patch). As soon as i have a little time, i'll try to release a new upstream version with cdrkit support. I was also thinking about libburn support. Unfortunately RL work is heavy right now, so I can't really give an ETA for this :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 08:05:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:05:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280805.l1S85lfd006713@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command Alias: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com 2007-02-28 03:05 EST ------- Here is an update, but note: 1) Ntop is terminating on my system after 5-20 minutes. 2) javascript generated graphics are not displaying on my system (I don't know if this is a code problem or something with my browser at the moment). Spec URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop.spec SRPM URL: http://www.symetrix.com/~bjohnson/projects/Fedora-Extras/ntop-3.3-0.3.20060227cvs.fc6.src.rpm * Tue Feb 27 2007 Bernard Johnson - 3.3-0.3.20060227cvs - update to ntop cvs 20060227 - kill all the CVS files/directories - remove glib2-devel BR because gdome2-devel requires it - tcp_wrappers vs. tcp_wrappers-devel no dependent on os release - add initscripts to requires since init file uses daemon function - patch .so files to just version 3.3 not 3.3rc0; otherwise rpmlint complains - fix typo in init file -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 08:13:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:13:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280813.l1S8DOFo007116@bugzilla.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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 ------- Additional Comments From cgtobi at gmail.com 2007-02-28 03:13 EST ------- Cheers Nicolas, that would be very much appreciated since I don't have access to a fedora 5/6 machine here. Thanks in advance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 08:32:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 03:32:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 218342] Review Request: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280832.l1S8WnVt008061@bugzilla.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: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts - Tibetan Machine Uni font for Tibetan, Dzongkha and Ladakhi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218342 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-02-28 03:32 EST ------- (In reply to comment #15) > In email conversation Christopher Fynn suggest such package name: > fonts-tibetan-dzongkha > fonts-dzongkha-tibetan > fonts-tibetan-bhutanese For the record he also added "fonts-bodic" but I don't know of that is too generic. > I would like to pack Tibetan Machine Uni and Jomolhari in one package and name > it fonts-tibetan-dzongkha Ok, I don't want to drag the naming discussion on much longer. Let me send a quick mail to fedora-devel list too on fonts package naming guidelines input. Thanks for your patience. In retrospect it might have been easy just to stick with the upstream name. Anyway it is much harder to change the package name after the event so it is good to get it right now. :) Then we can just get back to the review itself. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 09:18:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:18:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702280918.l1S9IjVw011198@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-28 04:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #28) > (In reply to comment #27) > > Also I see that you need a sponsor, that is not a problem I can sponsor > > you, but before doing that I would like todo one more package review with > > you, so can you submit another package for review and post the bugzilla > > id here, then I'll reviw it and assuming that goes well then sponsor you. > I don't feel able to sponsor anybody, because the ACL issues disable me from > being able to fulfil the tasks I consider to a sponsor's obligations :( > Hmm, good point. I'll ask trond to open up the ACL for atleast the both of us when its imported. Also I must say I've never actually needed write access to a package of someone I sponsored so I'm okay with sponsering him even with the ACL's. > In same boat, is this package shipping the a target's library's *.o's in > parallel to libraries (*.lib, *.a). Normally this doesn't make any sense, > ... but this is an issue upstream should take care about. > There are no .a files only .o or .rel files and .lib files, these .lib files are not archives but linker scripts pointing to the .o / .rel files so that is fine. > > Maybe sdcc-sources or > > sdcc-libc-sources is better? > Hmm, I'm not sure. sdcc-libc-sources sounds like the most "self-explanatory" > package name to me, but this is a matter of personal preference. > I like that the best too, Trond can you change the package name for the sources to sdcc-libc-sources > Technically, I see directory ownership issues between *-src and the main package > (IMO, *-src must require the main package). > Agreed, Trond can you add this Requires > Finally, I don't think the "BR: byacc" is right. It probably should be "bison". > AFAIS, the toplevel configure seems to be wanting to enforce bison, but seems to > fail on this. Well it seems to except both, bot to prefere bison, so indeed that BR (BuildRequires) should be changed to bison. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 09:28:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 04:28:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230316] New: Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk under the GPL licence 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=230316 Summary: Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk under the GPL licence Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mcepl at redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL:http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/jbrout.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/jbrout-0.2.114.svn148-1.src.rpm Description: It's cross-platform, and has been tested on GNU/linux and windows XP/2k. jBrout is able to : * manage albums/photos (= folders/files) * tag photos with IPTC keywords * use internal jpeg thumbnail * comment photos (with jpeg comment) and album (textfile in folder) * rotate loss-less jpeg (and internal jpeg thumbnail) use EXIF info (date, size ..) * search pictures (tags, comment, date, ...) (not implemented yet) * use plugins (to export to html/gallery, to act like a httpserver, to export pictures to be mailed, ...) * work without database ! (just a xmlfile which can be rebuild from scratch) * handle a lot of photos (me : more than 20000) * upload photos to a flickr account * ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 11:08:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:08:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281108.l1SB8tZG018127@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 ------- Additional Comments From dcantrell at redhat.com 2007-02-28 06:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > This package cannot be accepted as is; there are still must > fix issues. rpmlint is not silent. And overall many other things > to check. rpmlint is not perfect. > Here we go: > > * there is a huge pile of patches. Can't some of them be submitted > upstream? I have some remarks on some of them: No. ISC won't take everything we need in dhcp. You want to use NetworkManager? You need these packages. Before I took over the dhcp packages, there were almost 100 patches. I've reduced it to the set you see now. > - dhcp-3.0.5-ldap-configuration.patch: is the last chunk really > needed? Is this patch from fedora or was it found somwhere else? > and has it been submitted upstream? Probably not needed, but overridden by %prep anyway. The ldap patch is a very common dhcp addition floating around the net that ISC won't take. > - dhcp-3.0.5-client.patch: the comment should explain what this patch > is about. There seems to be very specific fedora things mixed up > with new features, and these new features seem to be diverse. Maybe > this patch could be split? Probably so, but considering it's taken me months to clean up the train wreck that was there, this isn't high on my priority list. It's a manageable patch set now. Splitting it back out to feature patches is a goal. Everything contained in the 'client' patch patches code in the client subdirectory and related scripts. > - first chunk of dhcp-3.0.5-common.patch is very dubious (there are other > places with similar dubious code). dubious? > Most of the patch corrects compile-time warning, but there is also > a patch for a man page describing new features. Shouldn't this part > be split out and put in the patch where the features are added? Probably, like I said it's a manageable patch set for me now and _way_ better than what we had before I took it over. > - dhcp-3.0.5-dhcpctl.patch dhcp-3.0.5-dst.patch, > dhcp-3.0.5-fix-warnings.patch, dhcp-3.0.5-minires.patch > dhcp-3.0.5-omapip.patch are mostly build fixes. Shouldn't those > patches be grouped together? Probably, but these patches were made after my grand clean up of the dhcp package. > - dhcp-3.0.5-extended-new-option-info.patch has a new script in the > beginning. Is it really clean to have it mixed with the remaining? This patch is the first new separated-out feature patch I've after cleaning up the dhcp package. It enables the features in dhclient necessary for NetworkManager to work. > - dhcp-3.0.5-includes.patch mixes build fixes, and different new > features (seems that some are in extended-new-option-info, others > in dhcp-3.0.5-client.patch My first step in cleaning up the package was to make a rollup patch for each subdirectory in the source tree and break it out from there. With almost 100 patches when I took it over, it was quite unmanageable as the patches changed things, changed them back, then changed them again later on. > - libdhcp4client and timeouts patches seems clean to me, although it > seems to me that they should be merged. Has them been > submitted upstream? Can't go upstream. > - dhcp-3.0.5-server.patch seems clean too me, but there should be > a comment describing what is done in this patch. Has this been > submitted upstream? Can't go upstream. > To summarize it seems to me that the patches should be grouped such > that each new feature is in one patch and there is a patch containing > all the build fixes. You're right, but that's not going to happen overnight. It's manageable for me now. > * Regarding the patch dhcp-3.0.5-Makefile.patch, wouldn't it be > better to override the LFLAGS make variable instead of patching? Eh...that kind of stuff doesn't matter to me. Override or patch it, the end result is the same. > And why are all those link flags added? The package owner before me did that and I have yet to remove them. > What is the aim of the dhcp-3.0.5/minires/Makefile.dist patch? To not install the incorrect dhcpctl.3 man page. > Is libdst really needed by something? What? Where are you seeing this. It's an internal library built and linked in to the client and server. > The changelog mentions bugs I am not allowed to view for those 2 > items... Yeah, there are *a lot* of RHEL requirements for the dhcp package. > * setting RPM_OPT_FLAGS to RPM_OPT_FLAGS with other options is > ugly. Don't do that spec, won't be legible. OK, I'll pass them with --copts > * there are many places where rpm macros should be used, for > sysconfdir and also others. You should also make sure that > in the code sysconfdir value is used. OK, I'll change that. > * use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} consistently Changed to %{buildroot} > * keep timestamps for data files, even those shipped in the srpm Done. > * the ln -s in scriptlet for man pages seems wrong. What is it for? The dhcp-options.5 and dhcp-eval.5 man pages apply to dhclient and dhcpd. The previous maintainer created copies of each man page for each package (dhclient and dhcpd). The symlinks created in the postinstall scriptlets are there so people will still be able to find dhcp-options and dhcp-eval by name regardless of what package is installed. I don't like this solution, but I'm leaving it as is right now because it's not that critical. > * libdhcp4client-devel should Requires: pkgconfig Done. > * Why is -fvisibility=hidden used by default? Because of the way the previous maintainer of this package wrote libdhcp4client, I need to avoid symbol collisions on a global scale. This is the easiest way to hide everything and expose only those symbols needed. Eventually this library will go away, but for now we are using it. > * In my opinion > /etc/rc.d/init.d/* > shouldn't be marked as %config Done. > * dhcp should not depend on perl Oh yeah, it used to, but I removed the perl script the previous maintainer included. Removed the perl dependency. > * -devel should requires main package with version-release Done. > Suggestion: > use %defattr(-,root,root,-) Done. > I reset the flag to ? I've made some changes, but a lot of these requests are unreasonable for the Core/Extras merge review. The dhcp package is special and while I don't like the patch layout at the moment, that's not something I want to run through really quickly. I need time to break up the features appropriately. The other style changes are fine by me and I've made those changes, but I cannot modify the patch layout before the merge. That's far too time consuming to rush through. ISC does not generally accept the patches we need for dhcp. They are unlike most open source projects and working upstream with them is _extremely_ difficult if not impossible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 11:12:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:12:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225693] Merge Review: dialog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281112.l1SBChRS018297@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dialog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225693 harald at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|needinfo?(mildew at gmail.com) | Fixed In Version| |dialog-1.1-1.20070227svn.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 11:17:04 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:17:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] New: Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller 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=230324 Summary: Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: trond.danielsen at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/avrdude/avrdude.spec SRPM URL: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/avrdude/avrdude-5.3.1-1.src.rpm Description: AVRDUDE is a program for programming Atmel's AVR CPU's. It can program the Flash and EEPROM, and where supported by the serial programming protocol, it can program fuse and lock bits. AVRDUDE also supplies a direct instruction mode allowing one to issue any programming instruction to the AVR chip regardless of whether AVRDUDE implements that specific feature of a particular chip. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 11:21:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:21:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281121.l1SBLnC3018629@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-28 06:21 EST ------- rpmlint output: [trondd at localhost result]$ rpmlint avrdude-5.3.1-1.fc6.i386.rpm W: avrdude conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/avrdude.conf This warning is ignored since the config file is not intended to be modified by the users. Package is built using mock. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 11:26:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:26:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281126.l1SBQUZB018874@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-28 06:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #27) > Also I see that you need a sponsor, that is not a problem I can sponsor you, but > before doing that I would like todo one more package review with you, so can you > submit another package for review and post the bugzilla id here, then I'll reviw > it and assuming that goes well then sponsor you. I submitted another package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 and updated sdcc according to the comments; snippet from changelog: * Wed Feb 28 2007 Trond Danielsen - 2.6.0-6 - Renamed source code package to libc-sources. - Change BuildRequire from byacc to bison. - Added "Require: sdcc" to libc-sources package. - Empty %doc entry removed. - Updated description of libc-sources package. Updated files at same location as previously: ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/sdcc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 11:27:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:27:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281127.l1SBRdu9018931@bugzilla.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: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 harald at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | -- 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 Wed Feb 28 11:46:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:46:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281146.l1SBkEC7019550@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-28 06:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #30) > > and updated sdcc according to the comments; snippet from changelog: > * Wed Feb 28 2007 Trond Danielsen - 2.6.0-6 > - Renamed source code package to libc-sources. > - Change BuildRequire from byacc to bison. > - Added "Require: sdcc" to libc-sources package. I'm afraid one more iteration is needed as that should be: Requires: sdcc = %{version}-%{release} As we always want this package and the base package to be in sync. Otherwise things look good so with that last change this package can be approved. I'll take a look at avrdude next. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 12:01:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:01:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225767] Merge Review: fonts-korean In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281201.l1SC1MFh019962@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fonts-korean https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225767 panemade at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |panemade at gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-28 07:01 EST ------- Mock build in rawhide is sucessful. But build.lod showed warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fonts/korean/TrueType warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fonts/korean/TrueType/fonts.cache-1 warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fonts/korean/TrueType/fonts.dir warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fonts/korean/TrueType/fonts.scale warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fonts/korean/misc warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fonts/korean/misc/encodings.dir warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fonts/korean/misc/fonts.cache-1 warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/fonts/korean/misc/fonts.dir Then rpmlint repotred some errors as On fonts-korean-1.0.11-9.1.1.src.rpm W: fonts-korean no-url-tag The URL tag is missing. W: fonts-korean unversioned-explicit-obsoletes ttfonts-ko The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if possible. W: fonts-korean setup-not-quiet You should use -q to have a quiet extraction of the source tarball, as this generate useless lines of log ( for buildbot, for example ) W: fonts-korean mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 17, tab: line 1) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. On fonts-korean-1.0.11-9.1.1.noarch.rpm W: fonts-korean no-url-tag The URL tag is missing. E: fonts-korean obsolete-not-provided ttfonts-ko The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths and not to break dependencies. W: fonts-korean non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ghostscript/FAPIcidfmap.ko A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. W: fonts-korean non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ghostscript/cidfmap.ko A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. I did some work for you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 12:01:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:01:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226795] Review Request: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281201.l1SC1R4c019974@bugzilla.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: sdcc - Small Device C Compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-28 07:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #31) > I'm afraid one more iteration is needed as that should be: > Requires: sdcc = %{version}-%{release} FIXED > As we always want this package and the base package to be in sync. > > Otherwise things look good so with that last change this package can be > approved. I'll take a look at avrdude next. > Great! Thanks for your help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 12:02:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:02:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225767] Merge Review: fonts-korean In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281202.l1SC2VDw020024@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: fonts-korean https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225767 ------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-02-28 07:02 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148910) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148910&action=view) some modification to SPEC -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 12:03:21 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:03:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281203.l1SC3LLe020081@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-28 07:03 EST ------- MUST: ===== 0 rpmlint output is: W: avrdude conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/avrdude.conf W: avrdude-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/avrdude-5.3.1/safemode.c * Package and spec file named appropriately * Packaged according to packaging guidelines * License ok * spec file is legible and in Am. English. * Source matches upstream 0 Compiles and builds on devel x86_64 0 BR: ok * No locales * No shared libraries * Not relocatable * Package owns / or requires all dirs * No duplicate files & Permissions ok * %clean & macro usage OK * Contains code only * %doc does not affect runtime, and isn't large enough to warrent a sub package * no -devel package needed, no libs / .la files. * no .desktop file required MUST fix: ========= * Doesn't compile, this can be fixed by removing "%{?_smp_mflags}" from the make command. Note that you can usually reproduce this problem yourself by adding "%_smp_mflags -j3" to ~/.rpmmacros . I have this even though I'm on a uni-processor machine. * Missing BuildRequires: ncurses-devel readline-devel. Note that ncurses-devel is not really needed as readline-devel already Requires it. * This rpmlint message: W: avrdude-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/avrdude-5.3.1/safemode.c Just chmod -x the file in %prep Questions: ========== * Can you explain a bit about how the config file is not supposed to be modified by end-users? Also can you add a comment to this extend above the %config line in the specfile? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 12:10:24 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:10:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281210.l1SCAOHE020356@bugzilla.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: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 harald at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis| | -- 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 Wed Feb 28 12:12:29 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:12:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281212.l1SCCTdQ020528@bugzilla.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: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 ------- Additional Comments From harald at redhat.com 2007-02-28 07:12 EST ------- done... sponsored by thl -- 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 Wed Feb 28 12:18:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:18:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 224365] Review Request: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281218.l1SCI1Ua020780@bugzilla.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: cdrkit - cdrtools replacement https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224365 harald at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From harald at redhat.com 2007-02-28 07:17 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: cdrkit Short Description: A collection of CD/DVD utilities Owners: harald at redhat.com Branches: InitialCC: -- 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 Wed Feb 28 12:34:49 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:34:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281234.l1SCYnls021366@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-28 07:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) * The package builds against libusb if it finds it => Non deterministic builds If you want to force building against libusb: => BuildRequires: libusb-devel If you do NOT want to build against libusb => BuildConflicts: libusb-devel * What also makes me wonder is the sources shipping a *.info but the package not installing it ?!? (In reply to comment #2) > * Can you explain a bit about how the config file is not supposed to > be modified by end-users? I doubt Trond's statement. It's a system-wide configuration file, being generated by the configure script, not a sample. IMO, if it's a sample then it must not be located under /etc but should be placed elsewhere (e.g. %doc) For the moment I'd recommend to use %configure ... --sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir}/avrdude And to mark it %config(noreplace) i.e. to treat it as a system-wide config file. Also not the source code in lexer.l: It refers to an avrdude.conf.sample which doesn't exist (Minor upstream bug, I'd say). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 12:52:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:52:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281252.l1SCq8hg023119@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-28 07:52 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > MUST fix: > ========= > * Doesn't compile, this can be fixed by removing "%{?_smp_mflags}" from the > make command. Note that you can usually reproduce this problem yourself by > adding "%_smp_mflags -j3" to ~/.rpmmacros . I have this even though I'm on a > uni-processor machine. I did get this message if I did not remove the build tree before rebuilding, but otherwise I could not reproduce the error, and I already had "%_smp_mflags -j3" in ~/.rpmmacros. However, I removed _smp_mflags from make, and it works just fine now. > * Missing BuildRequires: ncurses-devel readline-devel. Note that ncurses-devel > is not really needed as readline-devel already Requires it. I did not have any problems when building the package in mock, but I added the requirements anyway. > * This rpmlint message: > W: avrdude-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm > /usr/src/debug/avrdude-5.3.1/safemode.c > Just chmod -x the file in %prep FIXED. (in Reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > * Can you explain a bit about how the config file is not supposed to > > be modified by end-users? > I doubt Trond's statement. It's a system-wide configuration file, being > generated by the configure script, not a sample. > IMO, if it's a sample then it must not be located under /etc but should be > placed elsewhere (e.g. %doc) > > For the moment I'd recommend to use > %configure ... --sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir}/avrdude > And to mark it %config(noreplace) > > i.e. to treat it as a system-wide config file. avrdude.conf is a system-wide config file - and not just a sample file - and is usually not edited by the users. But I added the (noreplace) parameter to %config just in case, and moved avrdude.conf to a separate folder under /etc, as suggested. The reason for not adding noreplace initially, was just my misunderstanding of what noreplace did, but http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ch09s05.html#id2972655 enlightened me :) I uploaded the new versions to the same location. No errors from rpmlint no any of the packages. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 12:55:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:55:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226529] Merge Review: vixie-cron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281255.l1SCttcR023312@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: vixie-cron https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226529 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-28 07:55 EST ------- Fix in vixie-cron-4.1-75.fc7. Errors which stay: W: vixie-cron no-url-tag E: vixie-cron non-readable /etc/pam.d/crond 0600 E: vixie-cron non-standard-dir-perm /var/spool/cron 0700 E: vixie-cron non-standard-dir-perm /etc/cron.d 0700 E: vixie-cron setuid-binary /usr/bin/crontab root 06755 E: vixie-cron setgid-binary /usr/bin/crontab root 06755 E: vixie-cron non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/crontab 06755 W: vixie-cron service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/crond W: vixie-cron incoherent-init-script-name crond No upstream -> no url. Permission are needed for daemon safety. service-default-enabled -> ok incoherent-init-script-name -> ok -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:06:35 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:06:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281306.l1SD6ZRb023876@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-28 08:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > * The package builds against libusb if it finds it => Non deterministic builds > > If you want to force building against libusb: > => BuildRequires: libusb-devel > You're right I missed that in the ./configure output, I say we _want_ usb support, so that BuildRequires: libusb-devel should be added. Trond, you didn't do that in your new version, so can you fix that please. > * What also makes me wonder is the sources shipping a *.info but the package not > installing it ?!? > It is, good catch. I see that there also is no %doc, see below. > > (In reply to comment #2) > > * Can you explain a bit about how the config file is not supposed to > > be modified by end-users? > I doubt Trond's statement. It's a system-wide configuration file, being > generated by the configure script, not a sample. > IMO, if it's a sample then it must not be located under /etc but should be > placed elsewhere (e.g. %doc) > > For the moment I'd recommend to use > %configure ... --sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir}/avrdude > And to mark it %config(noreplace) > > i.e. to treat it as a system-wide config file. > Agreed, but why put it in a seperate subdir of /etc, do we expect avrdude to have multiple config files, is there a guideline for this I'm not aware of. I think this is deviating from upstream without a good reason. Making things like the man and info page be out of sync with whats installed. Ralf can you explain this? New MUST FIX list: ================== * add BuildRequires: libusb-devel * install info page, to %install add install -p -m 644 doc/avrdude.info $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir} and add it to %files and add the nescesarry scriptlets, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-47896da5fb2662d75deefeb9ba75145a398515db * add a %doc to %files, may I suggest: %doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog* NEWS README doc/TODO Trond maybe its a good idea to wait with a new version until Ralf answers my question about the avrdude.conf location. (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > * Missing BuildRequires: ncurses-devel readline-devel. Note that ncurses-devel > > is not really needed as readline-devel already Requires it. > > I did not have any problems when building the package in mock, but I added the > requirements anyway. > Sometimes a package can build just fine without some BuildRequires, but then is missing some functionality, thats the case here. Thats why you should always take a good look at ./configure's output. I thought I did, but I missed the libusb usage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:15:09 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:15:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281315.l1SDF97n024330@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-28 08:15 EST ------- [I love mid-air collisions ... might intersect with what Hans might have responded.] 1. FWIW: I can't reproduce the -j3 issue. 2. libusb-devel handling is still missing. When building with libusb-devel installed you see this ... checking for usb_get_string_simple in -lusb... yes Without you see: ... checking for usb_get_string_simple in -lusb... no The resulting binaries are different. 3. Unowned directory: /etc/avrdude -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:19:31 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:19:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281319.l1SDJVxr024465@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-28 08:19 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > [I love mid-air collisions ... might intersect with what Hans might have responded.] > > 1. FWIW: I can't reproduce the -j3 issue. > I haven't tried it more then once, probably a race condition, but the compiling of some c-file failed because an autogenerated header file wans't present at the moment of compiling, after make exited it was present -> smp issue. > > 2. libusb-devel handling is still missing. > When building with libusb-devel installed you see this > ... Agreed. > 3. Unowned directory: > /etc/avrdude > See my comment, why a seperate dir at all, why deviate from upstream on this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:21:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230275] Review Request: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281321.l1SDLlLx024730@bugzilla.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: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230275 ------- Additional Comments From ingvar at linpro.no 2007-02-28 08:21 EST ------- The short story: Fixed according to comments below. New spec/src.rpm : http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/fedora-extras-commit/varnish.spec http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/fedora-extras-commit/varnish-1.0.3-4.src.rpm Comments and answers: > * The packager tag (even commented) SHOULDN'T be in spec file. ok, removed > * Buildroot tag SHOULD be > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28Packaging%29#head-f196e7b2477c2f5dd97ef64e8eacddfb517f1aa1 ok, changed to %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > * Some of BuildRequires are redundant as they already installed from > development tools and based installed packages (such as gcc, > automake, autoconf, patch, libtoll and gcc-c++) all can be drop. I guess you mean libtool. ok, fixed. > * Requies: i don't really sure that kernel version can be added as > requires especially the kernel 2.6 is already included as default > kernel version for FC6 and more. Kernel version can be added as requires, a least technically, rpm and rpmbuild allow that. The package should also build on other distributions. There are people that have tried to build varnish from a source rpm on RHEL3. The daemon will build, but not work on kernel <2.6. > * vendor tag SHOULDN'T be use in spec file. ok, removed > * Group tag of %package -n %{lib_name} SHOULD be System > Environment/Librairies insteas of System Environment/Daemons. ok, fixed. > * Summary tag SHOULD be revisited. > (such as %{name} library) ok, fixed > * BR and Requires for -libs and -libs-devel packages: same things as > above. You need to specify buildroot for the subpackages as well? ok, fixed. > * Description -n %{lib_name} SHOULD be revisited (such as, > %{lib_name} contains librairies files for %{name}) It's there, but I have trimmed it a bit. > * Summary tag of %package -n %{lib_name}-devel SHOULD be revisited. > (such as development librairies for %{lib_name}. It's there, but I trimmed it a bit too. > * Group tag of %package -n %{lib_name}-devel SHOULD be > "Development/Librairies instead" instead of "System > Environment/Daemons" ok, fixed > * url tag in -devel isn't necessary can be remove. ok, removed > * -devel Requires is missing and it SHOULDN't be. > SHOULD be present : Requires: %{lib_name} = %{version}-%{release} Eh? At the moment, it's like this: Requires: ncurses kernel >= 2.6.0 %{lib_name} = %version-%{release} > * %description of -devel package SHOULDN be something like : > "The %{name}-devel package contains libraries and header files for > developing applications that use %{name}." instead. Well, there is no varnish-devel. Just a varnish-libs-devel, that contains .a, .la and .so files. So my new description "Development libraries for %{name}" should be enough, I guess. > %prep > * The use of iconv can be improve by using pushd to enter and popd to exit > directories. This fact can reduce the complexity of the iconv command > (including option and redirection command). > > Here is a way that you can use: > ----------------------------- > pushd bin > for i in varnishlog varnishtop varnishd \ > varnishstat varnishhist varnishncsa ; do > iconv -f iso-8859-2 -t utf-8 $i/$i.1 > $i/$i.1.utf8 > rm -f $i/$i.1 && mv $i/$i.1.utf8 $i/$i.1 > done > popd > iconv -f iso-8859-2 -t utf-8 man/vcl.7 > man/vcl.7.utf8 > rm -f man/vcl.7 && mv man/vcl.7.utf8 man/vcl.7 > ----------------------------- I may argue that this is less complex, but ok, fixed. > %build > * autogen.sh script SHOULDN'T be use if the configure file is > present and work. Ah, that's a leftover from working with the svn version. Thanks, fixed. > * From make commande, using %{?_smp_mflags} can improve the > procedure and doesn't affect no-smp. I used to have this, but it killed the build my home computer (maybe an unstable cpu?). The sources are not large, so compilation time is not an issue, I think. Now, -jN seems to work on other smp machines, so ok, added. > %install > * the %{makeinstall} should not be used if the "make install > DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT INSTALL="install -p"" > functions and it is the case. > see: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28Packaging%29#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002 ok, fixed > * From strip command, you SHOULD comment the use of and add -p option > to keep timstamps to files. ok, fixed > The use of: > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} > %{__install} -m 0644 INSTALL %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} (...) > %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ (...) > > SHOULDN'T be used. > Docs SHOULD be add in %doc in %files section such as "%Doc README > COPYING ChangeLog". > It's automaticaly installed in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}. ok, fixed > * You don't need to explicit write each files in %files section. > use %{_sbindir}/ instead. > use %{_mandir}/man1/*.1.gz instead. > use %{_mandir}/man7/*.7.gz instead. > use %{_libdir}/*.so.* instead. > use %{_libdir}/*.so instead. ok, fixed > * "*.la" files SHOULDN'T be include in -devel subpackage. > if for some reason its really require ( for full work), You should > add -statics subpackage. > > Can be remove by using: > find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/ -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';' ok, removed > * Scriptlets seems to miss some options and arguments. see : > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?highlight=%28script%29 ok, now only service stop and chkconfig --del at uninstall. > * "/etc" can be replace by its macros %{_sysconfdir}. ok, fixed > %changelog > please add a empty line between each of them. ok, fixed. > reflexion : use should think about the naming of -libs and > -libs-devel subpackag by renaming subpackage as follow, lib%{name} > and lib%{name}-devel. I used to do that, but was told by someone that the Fedora/RedHat standards was name, name-libs, name-devel and/or name-libs-devel. What is the correct answer? I found no specific information on this at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:23:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:23:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281323.l1SDNllb024875@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-28 08:23 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > New MUST FIX list: > ================== > * add BuildRequires: libusb-devel These are fixed, but I haven't uploaded the new version yet. > * install info page, to %install add > install -p -m 644 doc/avrdude.info $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir} > and add it to %files and add the nescesarry scriptlets, see: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#head-47896da5fb2662d75deefeb9ba75145a398515db > * add a %doc to %files, may I suggest: > %doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog* NEWS README doc/TODO I have added --enable-doc to configure, so now the complete documentation is generated (info page and html), and installed by make install. Ownership of /etc/avrdude has also been fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:26:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:26:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281326.l1SDQBv0025033@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-28 08:26 EST ------- [Another mid-air collision ;)] (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > * What also makes me wonder is the sources shipping a *.info but the package not > > installing it ?!? > > > > It is, good catch. The appropriate automake-magic is in doc/Makefile.am, but it's commented out, for reasons I can only guess on - Is upstream still active? Then they might want to clean up their sources ;) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > * Can you explain a bit about how the config file is not supposed to > > > be modified by end-users? > > I doubt Trond's statement. It's a system-wide configuration file, being > > generated by the configure script, not a sample. > > IMO, if it's a sample then it must not be located under /etc but should be > > placed elsewhere (e.g. %doc) > > > > For the moment I'd recommend to use > > %configure ... --sysconfdir=%{_sysconfdir}/avrdude > > And to mark it %config(noreplace) > > > > i.e. to treat it as a system-wide config file. > > > > Agreed, but why put it in a seperate subdir of /etc, why not? > do we expect avrdude to > have multiple config files, is there a guideline for this I'm not aware of. Nope, it' just my personal preference. For two reasons: 1. I hate package polluting /etc and I hate packages which momentary (temporarily?) apply one single configuration file, because packages in longer terms tend to have more than one config file. 2. In case of embedded tools, I tend to have several config files reflecting different setups, which I tend to keep in parallel. I don't use avrdude, so I am not sure if this applies in this particular case. Probably most users will apply setups in ~/ should they need customized setups. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:50:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:50:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195846] Review Request: pengupop - Networked Game in the vein of Move/Puzzle Bobble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281350.l1SDo6wE027271@bugzilla.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: pengupop - Networked Game in the vein of Move/Puzzle Bobble https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195846 limb at jcomserv.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-28 08:49 EST ------- Change owner to limb at jcomserv.net (orphaned) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:51:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:51:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 190396] Review Request: netpanzer - An Online Multiplayer Tactical Warfare Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281351.l1SDpISx027536@bugzilla.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: netpanzer - An Online Multiplayer Tactical Warfare Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190396 limb at jcomserv.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |limb at jcomserv.net Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-28 08:51 EST ------- Change owner to limb at jcomserv.net (orphaned) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:51:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:51:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 190397] Review Request: netpanzer-data - Data files for netpanzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281351.l1SDpNkg027578@bugzilla.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: netpanzer-data - Data files for netpanzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190397 limb at jcomserv.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |limb at jcomserv.net Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From limb at jcomserv.net 2007-02-28 08:51 EST ------- Change owner to limb at jcomserv.net (orphaned) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:59:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:59:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225859] Merge Review: groff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281359.l1SDxDWu028841@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: groff https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225859 mmaslano at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From mmaslano at redhat.com 2007-02-28 08:59 EST ------- Fix in groff-1.18.1.4-4.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 13:59:26 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:59:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281359.l1SDxQoj028901@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 twaugh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(twaugh at redhat.com)| ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-28 08:59 EST ------- In reply to comment #2: > W: a2ps file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/a2ps.info.gz > Need to run iconv on the info file before install? I think rpmlint is in error here. 8: yes, upstream is dead as far as I can tell. In reply to comment #5: > Is it really necessary to rerun the autotools? > The > cp /usr/share/aclocal/libtool.m4 m4/ > also seems wrong to me. Unfortunately a2ps is *really* temperamental with autotools. Yes, it is necessary to re-run them in order to add knowledge about some architectures e.g. x86_64. If you can find any way to make this better in a2ps, please send me a tested patch -- I spent at least two days trying to get it to *build* at all last time I had to update it. I've applied all the changes I've seen suggested, and tagged and built 4.13b-61.fc7. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 14:20:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225667] Merge Review: cryptsetup-luks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281420.l1SEKl17032088@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: cryptsetup-luks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225667 gauret at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gauret at free.fr ------- Additional Comments From gauret at free.fr 2007-02-28 09:20 EST ------- Just a few things I noticed : in the packaged %doc, there's a generic autotools INSTALL file, and two empty files (NEWS and README). Those three files should not be included in %doc, they're useless. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 14:26:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:26:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281426.l1SEQhPK000320@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com 2007-02-28 09:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #24) > ------------------------------------------------ > BuildRequires: firefox-devel = 2.0.0.1 > Requires: firefox = 2.0.0.1 > ------------------------------------------------ added. (In reply to comment #25) > > This is not for the fedora package but for upstream. There is no > problem for us to disable smp_mflags. However I had a look, and a > possibility is that chmsee_LDFLAGS is used incorrectly to specify > library link, it should only be for linker options, chmsee_LDADD > is for link. So in my opinion, it should be along: > > chmsee_LDFLAGS = -R$(GECKO_HOME) \ > $(AM_LDFLAGS) > > chmsee_LDADD = \ > libcppwrapper.la \ > @CHMSEE_LIBS@ \ > @CHMLIB_LIBS@ \ > @MD5_LIBS@ \ > $(GECKO_LIBS) \ > $(GECKO_EXTRA_LIBS) > Thanks very much! > > > > icon scriptlet updated. > > Still missing in %postun > :D > Also I think the use of the gnochm icon for mimetype deserves a > comment. It is in changelog, but it seems to me that a comment > near the Source1 or near the install calls in %install should be > there too. added. Spec URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/in-review/chmsee-1.0.0-0.10.beta.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 14:26:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:26:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230344] New: Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. 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=230344 Summary: Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: andreas at bawue.net QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/bacula/bacula.spec SRPM URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/bacula/bacula-2.0.2-2.el5.src.rpm Unpacked SRPM: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/bacula/ Description: Bacula is a set of programs that allow you to manage the backup, recovery, and verification of computer data across a network of different computers. It is based on a client/server architecture and is efficient and relatively easy to use, while offering many advanced storage management features that make it easy to find and recover lost or damaged files. Please do keep in mind, this is just a preliminary submission. There are still going to besome minor changes in the initscripts and some file locations might be changed a bit. However, this is in general the package I'll finally submit in a few days but put in here already so mmcgrath can take a look at it already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 14:41:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:41:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 194373] Review Request: kdeedu: Educational/Edutainment applications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281441.l1SEfbNv002291@bugzilla.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: kdeedu: Educational/Edutainment applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194373 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-28 09:41 EST ------- > If it's not required anymore, I'll just move this to FE-ACCEPT it's not, I'll take the liberty of adjusting status (feel free to change if you feel otherwise). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 15:08:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:08:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281508.l1SF8Nca004479@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-28 10:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > Unfortunately a2ps is *really* temperamental with autotools. Yes, it is > necessary to re-run them in order to add knowledge about some architectures e.g. > x86_64. I cannot test because I don't have an x86_64. But if the issue is with calling internal libtool, I have an untested patch I will attach. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 15:10:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:10:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281510.l1SFAJEr004664@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-28 10:10 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148925) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148925&action=view) very simple patch to call external libtool -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 15:29:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:29:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226496] Merge Review: tn5250 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281529.l1SFTlsT006390@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: tn5250 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226496 ------- Additional Comments From karsten at redhat.com 2007-02-28 10:29 EST ------- I'm glad that you know all those wiki pages, I can't seem to find them when I look for them ;-( fixed in tn5250-0.17.3-14.fc7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 15:33:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:33:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 197353] Review Request: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281533.l1SFXtMP006895@bugzilla.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: man-pages-fr - French man pages from the Linux Documentation Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197353 aportal at univ-montp2.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |WONTFIX Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED ------- Additional Comments From aportal at univ-montp2.fr 2007-02-28 10:33 EST ------- It seems to me that nobody want to review this package, and there is nobody interrest since more than 7 months, so I close -- 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 Wed Feb 28 15:39:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:39:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 167147] Review Request: aqsis - 3D Rendering system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281539.l1SFdinQ007883@bugzilla.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: aqsis - 3D Rendering system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-28 10:39 EST ------- Well, as this is a sponsor-needed ticket, I want to check one more review request. So would you update bug 223657? By the way, who is the _first_ people who will maintain this package (and bug 223657)? Note: now I am trying to update my rawhide system and I expect that this may take long because perhaps around 300 update packages are released... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 15:41:40 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:41:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281541.l1SFfeoD008165@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-28 10:41 EST ------- Well, now I am trying to update my rawhide system and I think this may take long because around 300 (or more?) update packages are released.... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 15:43:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:43:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 219025] Review Request: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281543.l1SFhfYE008469@bugzilla.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: ntop - A network traffic probe similar to the UNIX top command Alias: ntop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219025 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2007-02-28 10:43 EST ------- Well, now I am trying to update my rawhide system and I think this may take long because around 300 (or more?) update packages are released.... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 15:51:06 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:51:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281551.l1SFp6k4009431@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 ------- Additional Comments From twaugh at redhat.com 2007-02-28 10:51 EST ------- I don't think it's as simple as that. We have to run the autotools anyway to properly incorporate patches that change the .in files (such as the hebrew patch), and anyway we seem to end up with broken configure scripts if we do that properly on anything more recent than FC-6. Feel free to play around with this yourself -- the brokenness can be seen on i386 as well. I am not touching the a2ps auto* code any more unless there is a real actual need (i.e. doesn't build). Already too much time has been wasted on it, and in my opinion we shouldn't be shipping a2ps any more anyway but making paps better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 15:52:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:52:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 200236] Review Request: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281552.l1SFq2fJ009580@bugzilla.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: kdeaddons: K Desktop Environment - Plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200236 than at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 15:57:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:57:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226501] Merge Review: traceroute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281557.l1SFv00h010111@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: traceroute https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226501 dmitry at butskoy.name changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|dmitry at butskoy.name |mbacovsk at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 16:03:56 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:03:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281603.l1SG3u93010805@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-28 11:03 EST ------- perl-5.8.8-14.fc7 built - this is with your specfile, plus a couple of changes to fix paths on 64-bit builds, and comments for the various patches reflecting your work moving them upstream. I'll attach a diff of the changes I had to make to get it to build on 64bit - several files end up in /usr/lib/ instead of %{_libdir}/ when '_libdir' means /usr/lib64 - essentially 'noarch' stuff. It's a big pain, I wish I knew a better way to do that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 16:04:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:04:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281604.l1SG4m3u010897@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-28 11:04 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148936) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148936&action=view) diff between spot's spec file and the one that builds on 64bit -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 16:09:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:09:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281609.l1SG9B7A011251@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 ------- Additional Comments From rnorwood at redhat.com 2007-02-28 11:08 EST ------- Oh, and today I'm going to look at the patches that couldn't be sent upstream and the one that wasn't done yet. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 16:12:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:12:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281612.l1SGCqDD011804@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 flavio80 at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |flavio80 at gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From flavio80 at gmail.com 2007-02-28 11:12 EST ------- hi , i tried to compile this version: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-9.src.rpm on fedora core 6 - ppc64 and i got this error: /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/lib64/libcom_err.so when searching for -lcom_err /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/lib64/libcom_err.a when searching for -lcom_err /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lcom_err -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 16:16:55 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:16:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281616.l1SGGteb012058@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-28 11:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > > Agreed, but why put it in a seperate subdir of /etc, > why not? > Because its unnecessary deviating from upstream, upstreams docs / FAQ's mailinglist advice will say look at / edit /etc/avrdude.conf and it won't be there. Unless there are strong reasons lets not deviate from what upstream does, in order to invoke the least element of surprise factor. So Trond could you please drop the extra sysconfdir parameter to %configure? and then upload the new srpm / spec, I think that we can finish the review then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 16:22:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:22:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281622.l1SGMpn2012557@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-28 11:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > > Agreed, but why put it in a seperate subdir of /etc, > > why not? > > > > Because its unnecessary deviating from upstream, upstreams docs / FAQ's > mailinglist advice will say look at / edit /etc/avrdude.conf and it won't be there. Now you've lost me. Upstream lack of insight/experience as argument ?!? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 16:31:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:31:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281631.l1SGV17Y013327@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl 2007-02-28 11:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > (In reply to comment #9) > > > > Agreed, but why put it in a seperate subdir of /etc, > > > why not? > > > > > > > Because its unnecessary deviating from upstream, upstreams docs / FAQ's > > mailinglist advice will say look at / edit /etc/avrdude.conf and it won't be > there. > Now you've lost me. Upstream lack of insight/experience as argument ?!? > No staying close to upstream as argument al by itself, just like we want to use the upstream / dir for gcc cross compilers amongst other things to not deviate from upstream. Now if upstream but the config file under /usr/etc I would the first to say @#$% upstream and move that file to a better place, but there is _nothing_ wrong with upstream's placing in this case, so why move it and confuse users? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 16:53:28 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281653.l1SGrS5N015787@bugzilla.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: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de 2007-02-28 11:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > (In reply to comment #10) > > > (In reply to comment #9) > > > Because its unnecessary deviating from upstream, upstreams docs / FAQ's > > > mailinglist advice will say look at / edit /etc/avrdude.conf and it won't be > > there. > > Now you've lost me. Upstream lack of insight/experience as argument ?!? > > > > No staying close to upstream as argument al by itself, We are supposed to be system integrators. It's our job to integrate/customize a package in such a way it fits best (what ever this means) into a system. This exactly is the reason why configure scripts exist and why configure scripts supply a --sysconfdir option. It's our job to choose what we think is best. My experience tells me /etc/ is a mistake, because many other packages commited the same mistake before and regretted it. > just like we want to use > the upstream / dir for gcc cross compilers amongst other > things to not deviate from upstream. Nope, not deviating from upstream is not the point wrt. /target The real reasons are * prefix/target is an established defacto standard for > decade, predating the FHS/LSB. * like many other "exotic" items and details it is missing from the FHS/LSB. * prefix/target is not a configuration item. It's hard-coded and almost impossible to change. I'd be more than pleased to see this changed, but ... it's simply non-trivial and non-realistic. > Now if upstream but the config file under /usr/etc > I would the first to say @#$% upstream and move that file to a better place, but > there is _nothing_ wrong with upstream's placing in this case, so why move it > and confuse users? Cf. above. It's our job. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 17:18:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:18:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230324] Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281718.l1SHI7u7017943@bugzilla.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324 ------- Additional Comments From trond.danielsen at gmail.com 2007-02-28 12:18 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > (In reply to comment #11) > > Now if upstream but the config file under /usr/etc > > I would the first to say @#$% upstream and move that file to a better place, but > > there is _nothing_ wrong with upstream's placing in this case, so why move it > > and confuse users? > Cf. above. It's our job. I do not have a strong opinion on wheter /etc/avrdude.conf or /ect/avrdude/avrdude.conf is the correct path, but atm I do not think there is any point in deviating from upstream. However, avrdude.conf is, as I see it, not a config file. avrdude.conf contains information on various devices supported by avrdude, and should therefore be stored in /usr/share/avrdude/. This should, of cause, be discussed with upstream, just wanted to hear your thoughts before sending an email. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 17:19:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:19:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228255] Review Request: grub2 - grub next generation tools In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281719.l1SHJqR3018104@bugzilla.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: grub2 - grub next generation tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228255 ------- Additional Comments From jerone at gmail.com 2007-02-28 12:19 EST ------- Thanks for the comments guys. I've added autoconf as a dependency as well as moved the use of autoreconf to %prep. New rpms and specs can be found below: http://jgotech.net/jerone/grub-1.95/grub2.spec http://jgotech.net/jerone/grub-1.95/grub2-1.95-3.src.rpm note: Have not had a chance to test that new rpms build on powerpc just yet. Though it should. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 17:31:39 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:31:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281731.l1SHVd3s018818@bugzilla.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-RPM2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rnorwood at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org 2007-02-28 12:31 EST ------- Robin, are you going to own this package and import it? Or does anyone else volunteer? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 18:26:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:26:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281826.l1SIQ1gg022961@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG ------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com 2007-02-28 13:25 EST ------- Don't forget to CLOSE this bug and set resolultion to NEXTRELEASE after imported and built your package from cvs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 18:26:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:26:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281826.l1SIQjnY023037@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 lxtnow at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 18:33:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:33:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225957] Merge Review: k3b In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281833.l1SIXUmV023625@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: k3b https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225957 ------- Additional Comments From rdieter at math.unl.edu 2007-02-28 13:33 EST ------- harold, is this your package? Can we have some movement here? We really need to get the kde stack merged by early next week. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 18:48:34 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:48:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230394] New: Review Request: mysql++ - C++ wrapper for the MySQL C API 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=230394 Summary: Review Request: mysql++ - C++ wrapper for the MySQL C API Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: Fedora at FamilleCollet.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/mysql++.spec SRPM URL: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/mysql++-2.2.1-1.fc7.src.rpm Mock Log: http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/mysql++-build.log Description: MySQL++ makes working with MySQL server queries as easy as working with STL containers. This package contains only the libraries needed to run MySQL++-based programs. If you are building your own MySQL++-based programs, you also need to install the -devel package. --- rpmlint output W: mysql++ no-soname /usr/lib/libmysqlpp.so => don't know how to fix this, think it's an upstream issue W: mysql++-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/mysql++-2.2.1/lib/common.h => don't know what to do with this -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 18:49:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:49:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 228425] Review Request: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281849.l1SInNQt024961@bugzilla.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: gtkpod - Graphical song management program for Apple's iPod Alias: gtkpod-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228425 ------- Additional Comments From tmz at pobox.com 2007-02-28 13:49 EST ------- I haven't forgotten. I've built for devel already (only showed up recently due to the devel freeze). The FC-6 branch is now in needsign state. I'll close this after that build gets pushed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 19:40:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:40:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230344] Review Request: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702281940.l1SJeD99030144@bugzilla.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: bacula - Cross platform network backup for Linux, Unix, Mac and Windows. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230344 ------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz 2007-02-28 14:39 EST ------- Running "alternatives" in the init-scripts to get the database backend must be done with LANG=C or the grep in the pipe will find nothing on non-english locales. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 20:38:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:38:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226641] Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282038.l1SKcEWx002870@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226641 ------- Additional Comments From ajackson at redhat.com 2007-02-28 15:38 EST ------- > W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel > W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel > > These aren't coming back, so it's OK with me. However, it's safer to add > a version for the last version of each. So like: Obsoletes: XFree86-devel <= 4.3.0 ? Did the rest in 7.2-5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 20:42:37 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:42:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226641] Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282042.l1SKgbt6003230@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226641 ------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com 2007-02-28 15:42 EST ------- Yes, along those lines. Might need to add an epoch if XFree86-devel/xorg-x11-devel had one. Admittedly, all it's doing is helping the case if we ever switch back to XFree86, which is obviously going to happen any day now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 21:25:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:25:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 230449] New: Review Request: hostapd - User space daemon for access point 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=230449 Summary: Review Request: hostapd - User space daemon for access point Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kwizart at gmail.com QAContact: fedora-package-review at redhat.com Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/hostapd-FE/hostapd.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/hostapd-FE/hostapd-0.6-0.3.20070224.fc7.src.rpm Description: User space daemon for access point This is a work in progress, preliminary and need testing version. (the same version work fine but testing means see if it work with d80211 based wifi module which are integrated in the 2.6.21rc1 kernel) Mock log avaible in the same directory rpmlint is silent compiled on fc6 for fc7 i386 (x86_64 can be done if needed) A discution should be held about inclusion of madwifi lib needed to enable master mode support for this module (without including madwifi binary daemon) yet, enabling d80211 means to bundle d80211 taken from intel website (or else)... This solution isn't good and headers should be held in kernel-header (this wasn't the case with 2.6.20-1.2949.fc7) Also, using a proper versionned BR about kernel-headers since it will requires 2.6.21rc1 from kernel.org that are kernel.2.6.20_and_some_more in fedora. This would mean the easier BR will be to use 2.6.21 when avaible... Question is the relation with wpa-supplicant because it will also need paching against d80211 and may need to enable wpa_supplicant-devel to allow using wpa on master mode acces point... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 22:21:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:21:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282221.l1SMLEiX013059@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-28 17:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > I don't think it's as simple as that. We have to run the autotools anyway to > properly incorporate patches that change the .in files (such as the hebrew > patch), This patch cleanly changes configure together with configure.in and therefore shouldn't need a rerun of autotools. I have checked all the patch they seem clean. The timestamps are messed up after patching, but that may be corrected. I'll attach patches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 22:24:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:24:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282224.l1SMO8V8013389@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #148925|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-28 17:23 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148967) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148967&action=view) simple patch to call external libtool updated This is the same patch cleaned up. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 22:25:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:25:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282225.l1SMP2OV013563@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-28 17:24 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148968) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148968&action=view) spec file patch to avoid running the autotools -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 22:25:51 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:25:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225235] Merge Review: a2ps In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282225.l1SMPp75013660@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: a2ps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225235 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-28 17:25 EST ------- In the patch I also removed the dependency on gperf, since I couldn't find that package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 22:44:18 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:44:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 222042] Review Request: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282244.l1SMiIRm016289@bugzilla.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: GDAL - Geospatial Data Abstraction Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222042 ------- Additional Comments From cbalint at redhat.com 2007-02-28 17:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #55) > hi , i tried to compile this version: http://openrisc.rdsor.ro/gdal-1.4.0-9.src.rpm > I will ignore this, for several reason, so to help me please: 1) fill attachment with a pure mock session debug on ppc64 ! 2) make sure you use pure mock session from the scratch, and not a mixed biarch stuff, i cannot trust your ppc64 fedora install ! Anyway in fedora build system this will go through mock, wich is a clean pure distilled build-root, if on that fail i am sure its a bug otherwise i cannot trust any other 'custom' buildroot especialy biarch ones ! > on fedora core 6 - ppc64 and i got this error: > > > /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/lib64/libcom_err.so when searching for > -lcom_err > /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible /usr/lib64/libcom_err.a when searching for > -lcom_err > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lcom_err Yeah. same on sparc64 where 32bit is default, unless you make sure force true 32 bit mode and do: setarch ppc; su -; rpmbuild gdal.spec --target=ppc so, i am looking forward for a pure mock build ! I will test ppc64 tomorrow, but i am right now 99% sure you tryed a simple rpmbuild from 64bit land and your rpmbuild session is setted somehow to build default 32bit because from your logs for some reason it looks after 64 bit libs wich is abnormaly rejected for your 32 bit build .... Please let me know. /cristian -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 22:59:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:59:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225691] Merge Review: dhcp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282259.l1SMxwBO017723@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: dhcp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225691 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-28 17:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > rpmlint is not perfect. Indeed, but its output should be shown in review and commented. This hasn't been done for binary packages. > > - dhcp-3.0.5-ldap-configuration.patch: is the last chunk really > > needed? Is this patch from fedora or was it found somwhere else? > > and has it been submitted upstream? > > Probably not needed, but overridden by %prep anyway. The ldap patch is a very > common dhcp addition floating around the net that ISC won't take. Is there an url for that patch? > > - first chunk of dhcp-3.0.5-common.patch is very dubious (there are other > > places with similar dubious code). > > dubious? a variable is set but the value is never used?? > > - dhcp-3.0.5-extended-new-option-info.patch has a new script in the > > beginning. Is it really clean to have it mixed with the remaining? > > This patch is the first new separated-out feature patch I've after cleaning up > the dhcp package. It enables the features in dhclient necessary for > NetworkManager to work. Ok. This patch seems clean to me. However I am not convinced that having the script created by the patch is the best approach. Isn't that script provided on the net? Shouldn't it be a Source instead? It is not a blocker but a suggestioon. > > - libdhcp4client and timeouts patches seems clean to me, although it > > seems to me that they should be merged. Has them been > > submitted upstream? > > Can't go upstream. And about merging them? > You're right, but that's not going to happen overnight. It's manageable for me now. In my opinion the patchset is not acceptable as is -- even though I believe you when you say that it was worse before and it is now manageable. All the changes I ask and you agreed upon are required, in my opinion, in order to make those patches easier to understand and review. So to me it is a must fix. Still I understand perfectly that this issue may be low priority for you and I guess you have enough work already. But I wouldn't let such a patchset enters former fedora extras so it is the same here. However there is no need to hurry, there is has never been a time constraint on fedora review, package quality is the most important thing, and clearly this issue is not easy to solve. So, my opinion is that you should just leave this as is until you find time to clean things. The package won't be approved until them, but since it is already in fedora it is not a big deal. Another possibility would be for you to ask some help from the community, I guess that dhcp is a very popular package, and it could be possible that somebody helps you to fix that issue. > > * Regarding the patch dhcp-3.0.5-Makefile.patch, wouldn't it be > > better to override the LFLAGS make variable instead of patching? > > Eh...that kind of stuff doesn't matter to me. Override or patch it, the end > result is the same. Indeed, but here the same change is done 5 time in the patch, there is no nice comment in the spec file to explain where the flags come from, and RPM_OPT_FLAGS is conveniently used in the spec. The end result is the same, but in my opinion it would be more elegant to change LFLAGS on the command line. I won't make it a blocker. > > And why are all those link flags added? > > The package owner before me did that and I have yet to remove them. That is a blocker (or need an explanation). > > What is the aim of the dhcp-3.0.5/minires/Makefile.dist patch? > > To not install the incorrect dhcpctl.3 man page. Shouldn't it be simpler and less intrusive to %exclude them? > > Is libdst really needed by something? > > What? Where are you seeing this. It's an internal library built and linked in > to the client and server. It is in dhcp-devel. I think it shouldn't be shipped, so I ask why is it shipped? > > The changelog mentions bugs I am not allowed to view for those 2 > > items... > > Yeah, there are *a lot* of RHEL requirements for the dhcp package. This renders such changelog entries rather unuseful in fedora. Not a big deal if things are commented in the spec. > > * setting RPM_OPT_FLAGS to RPM_OPT_FLAGS with other options is > > ugly. Don't do that spec, won't be legible. > > OK, I'll pass them with --copts I suggest getting rid of COPTS completely and putting things directly on the command line. > > * the ln -s in scriptlet for man pages seems wrong. What is it for? > > The dhcp-options.5 and dhcp-eval.5 man pages apply to dhclient and dhcpd. The > previous maintainer created copies of each man page for each package (dhclient > and dhcpd). The symlinks created in the postinstall scriptlets are there so > people will still be able to find dhcp-options and dhcp-eval by name regardless > of what package is installed. > > I don't like this solution, but I'm leaving it as is right now because it's not > that critical. Why don't you simply ship dhcp-options.5* and dhcp-eval.5* in both packages? > > * Why is -fvisibility=hidden used by default? > > Because of the way the previous maintainer of this package wrote libdhcp4client, > I need to avoid symbol collisions on a global scale. This is the easiest way to > hide everything and expose only those symbols needed. Eventually this library > will go away, but for now we are using it. Part of this explanation should be in a comment near -fvisibility=hidden along # -fvisibility=hidden is needed for libdhcp4client, it is the simplest # way to avoid collisions by hiding everything and exposing only # the symbols needed > > * dhcp should not depend on perl > > Oh yeah, it used to, but I removed the perl script the previous maintainer > included. Removed the perl dependency. Mmh, I guess this dependency comes from dhcpd-conf-to-ldap, it is still there... > I've made some changes, but a lot of these requests are unreasonable for the > Core/Extras merge review. The dhcp package is special and while I don't like > the patch layout at the moment, that's not something I want to run through > really quickly. I need time to break up the features appropriately. The other > style changes are fine by me and I've made those changes, but I cannot modify > the patch layout before the merge. That's far too time consuming to rush through. As I expanded above there is no need to rush, but the patch layout is not acceptable. I really can't see why the requests are unreasonable for the Core/Extras merge review. To me it is the reverse: letting a package which isn't perfect (from the packaging point of view, of course ;-) be merged would be unreasonable. > ISC does not generally accept the patches we need for dhcp. They are unlike > most open source projects and working upstream with them is _extremely_ > difficult if not impossible. I see. Is there a formal collaboration between linux package distros maintainers, and also maybe linux and BSD maintainers? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 23:15:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:15:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225296] Merge Review: autoconf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282315.l1SNF3je018808@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: autoconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225296 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pertusus at free.fr Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-28 18:15 EST ------- I don't see any other issues, I hope I didn't miss anything, I will assign to me, and set that package to accepted; Ralf you can change or comment if you are not happy with that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 23:22:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:22:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226641] Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282322.l1SNMluc019223@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226641 ------- Additional Comments From ajackson at redhat.com 2007-02-28 18:22 EST ------- Mmm, inclined to just not bother really. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 23:38:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:38:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225119] Review Request: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282338.l1SNcH0p019983@bugzilla.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: pythoncad - PythonCAD scriptable CAD package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225119 kwizart at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(kwizart at gmail.com)| ------- Additional Comments From kwizart at gmail.com 2007-02-28 18:38 EST ------- Sorry for the later answear... I finaly got something with locale SRPM: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/PythonCAD/PythonCAD-0.1.35-5.kwizart.fc6.src.rpm SPEC: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/6/testing/PythonCAD/PythonCAD.spec Description: PythonCAD scriptable CAD package rpmlint is still silent... Since you seems to be interested in some package reviews i have submitted (cinepaint pyopengl, some help for aqsis) Will you accept to sponsor me? I plan to review brlcad also and i'm working on elektra for the moment...(with the hope to finish before devel freeze so this will be the first on the TODO list). I also have libdiract and other wifi relatives packages for Fedora extras currently in review... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 23:42:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:42:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 226276] Merge Review: perl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282342.l1SNgB9n020183@bugzilla.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: Merge Review: perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226276 jorton at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jorton at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From jorton at redhat.com 2007-02-28 18:42 EST ------- Moving *only* the headers into a -devel subpackage seems half baked, it breaks a bunch of builds, yet the perl package itself still contains bags of stuff only useful for building Perl C extensions: c2ph, half of MakeMaker, ... I'm sure there's more. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 23:42:45 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:42:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 190396] Review Request: netpanzer - An Online Multiplayer Tactical Warfare Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282342.l1SNgjiC020241@bugzilla.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: netpanzer - An Online Multiplayer Tactical Warfare Game https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190396 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 23:42:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:42:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 190397] Review Request: netpanzer-data - Data files for netpanzer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282342.l1SNgseV020279@bugzilla.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: netpanzer-data - Data files for netpanzer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190397 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 23:44:01 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:44:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 195846] Review Request: pengupop - Networked Game in the vein of Move/Puzzle Bobble In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282344.l1SNi16Z020355@bugzilla.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: pengupop - Networked Game in the vein of Move/Puzzle Bobble https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195846 wtogami at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 23:51:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:51:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282351.l1SNpA2B020803@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr 2007-02-28 18:51 EST ------- * rpmlint (ignorable, but you could want to fix it): W: chmsee mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 8, tab: line 1) * free software license, included * follow guidelines * scriptlets are right * sane provides * match upstream: b18df276ff8050668ff3da163efe147c chmsee-1.0.0-beta.tar.gz * %files section right * .desktop right APPROVED You seem to be quite active in the fedora community, and I'll sponsor you. I think that you learned a lot in this review and others, but I am not completely sure that you know the guidelines and procedures enough already to formally approve packages; in little time you will be experienced enough, but maybe for your first reviews you could do the whole review but ask for another look before formally approving. Feel also free to disregard my advice... - first note: there is a potential directory owning issue since /usr/share/icons/gnome/ /usr/share/icons/hicolor/ and some directories below may be unowned. However this is an issue that should be fixed with a freedesktop filesystem package or the like, so I let it be. I would suggest owning those directories, though. - 2nd note: I'll try to remember to watch out changes in the gnochm icon. - 3rd note, there is linking against libraries that are not useful: $ ldd -u -r /usr/bin/chmsee Unused direct dependencies: /lib/librt.so.1 /usr/lib/libatk-1.0.so.0 /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0 /lib/libm.so.6 /usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 /usr/lib/libcairo.so.2 /lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 /lib/libssl.so.6 /usr/lib/libplds4.so /usr/lib/libplc4.so /usr/lib/libnspr4.so /lib/libdl.so.2 This is very common, and not a big deal, but this could force unneeded rebuilds when the sonames change and cause rpm/yum/... to be less efficient. In general the fix is to use Private rightly in the .pc files of those libs, and sometimes there is also things to do in the package to avoid over linking. This is not a must fix at all you can completely ignore that issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 23:53:10 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:53:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 229826] Review Request: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282353.l1SNrAf0020939@bugzilla.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: Chmsee - a GTK2 CHM viewer based on chmlib and gecko https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229826 pertusus at free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |pertusus at free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |163779 nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Feb 28 23:53:43 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 207846] Review Request: perl-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200702282353.l1SNrhph021041@bugzilla.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-Finance-YahooQuote - Perl interface to get stock quotes from Yahoo! Finance Alias: finance-YahooQuote https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207846 Bug 207846 depends on bug 197841, which changed state. Bug 197841 Summary: Trim test/build stuff from mod_perl https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197841 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.