[Bug 210061] New: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system log interface
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210061
Summary: Review Request: msyslog - A daemon for the syslog system
log interface
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: normal
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: wolfy(a)nobugconsulting.ro
QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Spec URL: http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/msyslog/msyslog.spec
SRPM URL: http://wdl.lug.ro/linux/rpms/msyslog/msyslog-v1.08g-0.10.src.rpm
Description:
This project is intended as a whole revision of previous Secure Syslogd
project (wich is unsupported by now). It has all functionalities and some
more. The remaining things are Solaris support and Audit compatibility (on the
works).
The whole internal structure was redesigned to work with input and output
modules, standarizing interfaces to facilitate development for using special
devices and flexible configurations.
Current available output modules are classic, mysql, peo, pgsql, regex and
tcp. Available input modules are bsd, linux, unix, tcp and udp.
This is my third submission (second original) and I am still looking for 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.
17 years, 5 months
[Bug 177134] Review Request: mkvtoolnix - Matroska container utilites
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: mkvtoolnix - Matroska container utilites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177134
ville.skytta(a)iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|scop(a)fedoraproject.org |ville.skytta(a)iki.fi
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta(a)iki.fi 2006-12-06 04:46 EST -------
Nothing to add, approved. Even if "base64tool" is a genericish name for a tool,
all references to it I could find from some searching referred to this
particular one, so I'm fine with dealing with it later if there's ever need to
do 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.
17 years, 5 months
[Bug 188477] Review Request: maildrop
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please 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
------- Additional Comments From mfleming+rpm(a)enlartenment.com 2006-12-06 04:02 EST -------
Yeah, I'll finish the review when I get a spare half hour (there's not much left
to do IIRC). I've been quite busy at work so spare time is a premium :-).
I might submit my courier-imap package once that's done, but getting it to play
nice with rpmlint could be challenging (the existing spec and upgrade methods
are... *interesting* as I try and keep Sam's way of doing things as best 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.
17 years, 5 months
[Bug 167525] Review Request: cpptasks
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: cpptasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167525
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|fedora-extras- |
|list(a)redhat.com |
CC| |fedora-package-
| |review(a)redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From kevin(a)tummy.com 2006-12-05 23:12 EST -------
FYI, it seems that at least currently, the "jpp" tag isn't allowed in the
Release tag in extras packages. Can you remove the jpp and update?
--
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.
17 years, 5 months
[Bug 182678] Review Request: libopts
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libopts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182678
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package-
|list(a)redhat.com |review(a)redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From kevin(a)tummy.com 2006-12-05 22:47 EST -------
Paul: I still don't see the package in owners.list... did you forget to check it
back in?
Please re-add 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.
17 years, 5 months
[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: hylafax
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542
------- Additional Comments From faxguy(a)howardsilvan.com 2006-12-05 19:23 EST -------
Christoph,
I understand the confusion on this review. I am truly sorry for it, and I wish
that I could have somehow known ahead of time how to prevent the confusion...
because I certainly would have.
The mismatches between packages and specs and such has to do with the
development pace and my focus on software development rather than RPM packaging,
so I guess it's a chicken-and-egg kind of problem.
I've uploaded the hylafax-5.0.0-1.i386.rpm file that I was using to here:
http://superb-east.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/hylafax/hylafax-5.0.0-1...
Yes, I know the filename is different - that could not be avoided. But the file
data is the same.
As far as package/repository naming goes... I understand the httpd naming
manner, and I completely understand why it is named that way. Certainly it may
not meet the Extras criteria naming rules - neverless, it still makes sense to
me and is not confusing, and in fact I probably would have followed the same
naming convention in their shoes. I do not see it as an exception to
common-sense - although, yes, it may be an exception according to Extras naming
rules. Certainly the Extras rules can be a subset of common-sense.
For other examples - not of package naming, specifically - but for naming in
general... postfix and sendmail both have "sendmail" executables (among other
competing executable names). Similarly, mgetty-sendfax has a "sendfax"
executable that competes with an identically named executable from HylaFAX
(which is why HylaFAX isn't in Core in the first place, as the RedHat 5.2/6.0
maintainers decided to favor mgetty-sendfax and do away with HylaFAX rather than
implement a "switching" mechanism as they have done for sendmail/postfix). All
of this makes sense to me - and indeed I can see why it would confuse some - but
if one understands that, realistically, the purpose in the naming conflicts is a
perfect manner of clue-sticking the user that they're looking at conflicting
packages, just the same as if they were looking at two packages from the same
repository but of different versions.
The HylaFAX+ repository is aptly named "hylafax" because it is, after all,
HylaFAX. HylaFAX+ version numbers have always been different from the version
numbers at HylaFAX.org. Certainly it is not the only HylaFAX repository, but
realize that the hylafax.org repository is, itself, a fork - there almost always
have been different repositories (even among the earliest contributors). To say
that HylaFAX+ is not HylaFAX is to say that when Alan Cox patches the Linux
kernel for RedHat that it no longer is Linux.
The sourceforge HylaFAX project is known as HylaFAX+ for those people that have
a tough time understanding the issues that I am discussing, and certainly it
makes it easier than always saying "Sourceforge HylaFAX project". That said,
you really won't find anyone out there desireous to run both HylaFAX+ and
HylaFAX.org for practical reasons.
Realize that Darren's (Paul's) purpose here isn't really to assist the users who
will be using HylaFAX (in that they may become upset to find themselves using
HylaFAX+ instead of HylaFAX.org software). Rather, his purpose here is to take
measures to prevent users from seeing, as I do, that HylaFAX+ is as much HylaFAX
as the software found at HylaFAX.org or SGI-HylaFAX or his own commercial
"HylaFAX Enterprise Edition". If he really, truly, believed what he is trying
to say here then he wouldn't have named his own product with "HylaFAX".
My suggestion, Christoph, would be to see the HylaFAX+ vs. HylaFAX.org thing for
what it is, the usual forking arguments, and move past it so that we can get
this into Extras ... whether the ultimate package name be "hylafax" or "hylafax+".
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
17 years, 5 months