[Bug 187317] Review Request: mindi
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: mindi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187317
dennis(a)ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO| |187318
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From dennis(a)ausil.us 2006-12-04 07:52 EST -------
we have guidelines that need to be followed. the busybox binary has to be
removed from the tarball. and you need to use the one provided by Fedora. how
is 2.2.0 coming along?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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, 4 months
[Bug 167147] Review Request: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
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: Aqsis - 3D Rendering system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=167147
------- Additional Comments From pgregory(a)aqsis.org 2006-12-04 05:56 EST -------
> I am not going to review a package based on non-released sources.
>
> Either upstream will have to release their source first, or you will have to
> implement a set of patches, based on older released version.
This is a big of a quandary, the build and packaging is part of our source, so
either we...
1. Release the source with the RPM packaging not working, then modify it to pass
RPM compliance requirements, resulting in the released source and the RPM valid
source being out of sync. Not nice, especially as to fit all the RPM
requirements it seems will result in changes to the build system, i.e.
significant changes from the released source.
or
2. Don't release the source until the RPM compliance is met, resulting in the
RPM version being in release step with the non-RPM version, which is much more
preferable from a management point of view. But the reviewer has stated that
they are not prepared to review RPM compliance until the source is released.
Chicken and egg. It seems that this policy makes it very difficult to release in
a clean and manageable way if your release platforms include FC RPM.
Any suggestions 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.
17 years, 4 months
[Bug 187318] Review Request: mondo
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: mondo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187318
hlemaitr(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |hlemaitr(a)redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From hlemaitr(a)redhat.com 2006-12-04 05:28 EST -------
hello
No activity logged since August 2006. What's is the status of inclusion of Mondo
rescue into 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.
17 years, 4 months
[Bug 177747] Review Request: glade3
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: glade3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177747
------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan(a)gmail.com 2006-12-03 14:11 EST -------
spec updated according to your advice, thank you!
please have a look:
ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/fe-review/glade3/glade3.spec
ftp://ftp.fedora.cn/pub/fedora-cn/fe-review/glade3/glade3-3.0.2-0.6.src.rpm
changes:
* split to 3 packages: glade3, libgladeui, libgladeui-devel
glade3 is the binary, the desktop related files including a proposed icon from
tango project
libgladeui is the library and shared resource files (pixmaps and catalog xml)
libgladeui-devel is the headers and development documentation
* changed requires and buildrequires
* update description from the website. Still looking for a better description
for libgladeui
* incorporate various things from Martin's sample 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.
17 years, 4 months