[Bug 188668] Review Request: zenity
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: zenity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188668
jkeating(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From jkeating(a)redhat.com 2006-04-18 10:37 EST -------
Changes look good, rpmlint is silent, package builds w/ mock. Scriptlets work
even if they aren't EXACTLY like the suggested ones, thats passible.
--
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.
18 years, 1 month
[Bug 189224] New: Unable to Install additional software from Package Manager
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=189224
Summary: Unable to Install additional software from Package
Manager
Product: Fedora Core
Version: fc5
Platform: i586
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: normal
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: notting(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: kandala_tarak(a)yahoo.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
I have installed FC5 with only some basic installation and wanted to Install
some more packages after the installation was complete. I tried to install by
using Add/Remove Software from the Applications menu. After the Package Manager
application opens, a dialog box opens which says "Retrieving Software
Information". After some time I get an error which says "Unable to retrive
software information"
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Login into root user
2. Naviage to Applications > Add/Remove Software
Actual results:
Error dialog box appears with information "Unable to retrieve software information"
Expected results:
A list of Packages installed in the system have to be displayed
Additional info:
--
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.
18 years, 1 month
[Bug 188666] Review Request: gucharmap
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: gucharmap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188666
jkeating(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|188267 |188268
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From jkeating(a)redhat.com 2006-04-18 10:23 EST -------
Changes look good.
THe scripletsnippets is referential for now, as it is not linked. That would
have to be approved by the board. I mostly wanted you to be aware it was there
and take a look at what pertains to this package. I see no show stoppers, but
at some point you might want to narrow down the scrollkeeper update call to a
specific dir, but not necessary for initial release. Approving.
--
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.
18 years, 1 month
[Bug 188668] Review Request: zenity
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: zenity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188668
------- Additional Comments From yaneti(a)declera.com 2006-04-18 10:11 EST -------
My first comment was ment as a hint. I realize now it could be considered snide.
I apologize.
Your scripts are just different than the ones on the common scriptlets page. I
just don't consider the realm of sciptlets in packaging for a widely used common
distribution base an appropriate place for creative differences. Every such
difference makes cornercases for everyone and everything that tries to deal with
these specs. Be it human or automatic.
If you have objections against the common scriptlets why not discuss them rather
than creating yet another variety.
But thats just me. Anal retentive if you wish..
--
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.
18 years, 1 month
[Bug 188625] Review Request: AllegroOgg - Ogg library for use with the Allegro game library
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: AllegroOgg - Ogg library for use with the Allegro game library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188625
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package-
|list(a)redhat.com |review(a)redhat.com
wart(a)kobold.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink(a)leemhuis.info |wart(a)kobold.org
------- Additional Comments From wart(a)kobold.org 2006-04-18 10:07 EST -------
The real conflict with these two libraries is that they both create libraries
with the basename of 'alogg'. If you're worried about conflicts, then renaming
the spec file isn't enough.
The packaging guidelines don't give an unambiguous answer about the name, however:
"When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project
name from which this software came."
In this case, the upstream tarball and project name don't match. As a fallback:
"If this package has been packaged by other distributions/packagers in the past,
then you should try to match their name for consistency."
In this case, I wasn't able to find any other distributions that package this
particular library. I did find the other 'alogg' in Debian, however. I would
interpret the guidelines to mean that this other alogg should get priority for
the 'alogg' name, and Hans' choice to use AllegroOgg to match the upstream
package name is entirely 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.
18 years, 1 month
[Bug 176374] Review Request: nagios-plugins
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: nagios-plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176374
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|fedora-extras- |
|list(a)redhat.com |
CC| |fedora-package-
| |review(a)redhat.com
CC|fedora-package- |
|review(a)redhat.com |
CC| |fedora-extras-
| |list(a)redhat.com
webmaster(a)margo.bijoux.nom.br changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |webmaster(a)margo.bijoux.nom.b
| |r
------- Additional Comments From webmaster(a)margo.bijoux.nom.br 2006-04-18 09:21 EST -------
In the latest srpm posted here, nagios-plugins-all requires nagios-plugins-httpd
, but the plugin package is nagios-plugins-http.
--
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.
18 years, 1 month
[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra
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: elektra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430
------- Additional Comments From rc040203(a)freenet.de 2006-04-18 09:14 EST -------
Blocker:
- Wrong doc dirs
Further personal remarks:
- The include file names are too generic to justfy installing them into
$(includedir)
- Way too many warnings to provide sufficient trust to allow it to be installed
into /lib
- IMO, installing DLLs to /lib is a fundamental design flaw. I refuse to approve
any package doing so. Use ordinary, properly versioned shared libs, instead of
trying to introduce DLL hell to the Linux bootsystem.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
18 years, 1 month