[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 mclasen(a)redhat.com 2006-04-18 00:43 EST -------
I know there are packaging guidelines, but I don't know how I am supposed to
consider the ScriptletSnipplets page to be part of them. It isn't even linked from
the Packaging/Guidelines page, so how should I even find it ?!
I disagree wrt to the BuildRequires. A direct dependency should still be listed,
even if it would also be pulled in indirectly.
--
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
[Bug 185288] Review Request: libchmxx - C++ bindings for chmlib
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: libchmxx - C++ bindings for chmlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185288
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package-
|list(a)redhat.com |review(a)redhat.com
jpmahowald(a)gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink(a)leemhuis.info |jpmahowald(a)gmail.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald(a)gmail.com 2006-04-18 00:26 EST -------
- rpmlint checks return:
W: libchmxx-debuginfo objdump-failed
E: libchmxx-devel only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
symlink, can ignore
You need a %defattr on %files devel
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ([L]GPL) 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 directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- %clean 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
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r
Looking good 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.
18 years
[Bug 188105] Review Request: torque
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: torque
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188105
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package-
|list(a)redhat.com |review(a)redhat.com
ed(a)eh3.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QAContact|fedora-package- |fedora-extras-
|review(a)redhat.com |list(a)redhat.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From ed(a)eh3.com 2006-04-17 21:28 EST -------
The SRPM [please note the "6" instead of "5" in release tag since the
SRPM URL in comment #14 has a typo] at:
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~garrick/torque-2.1.0p0-0.6.200604171430cvs.src.rpm
sha1sum: ba0a569763d6b91697c9a40723b392be464ab64e
does cleanup everything mentioned in comments #12--13 and heres the
remainder of the review:
very minor nit:
+ please consider adding the "-q" option to %setup so that the
build logs are a little shorter and more readable (just a
request--by no means a blocker!)
good:
OK - source matches upstream
OK - macro usage looks consistent although there are some
harmless quirks like having both %__rm and %{__rm}
OK - proper use of -devel
OK - desktop files appear to have correct install syntax
OK - scriptlets look sane to me
OK - installed and runs with out seg-faulting on a single FC4 i386
machine (I do need to go dig up the syntax for creating default
queues, etc. because a quick "qsub -I" seems to wait forever and
I imagine its an incomplete setup and thus my fault. Other
commands such as "pbsnodes -a" and "qmgr" work just fine--no
segfaults.)
I don't see any blockers so its APPROVED.
Congrats on the first package and please feel free to contact me if you
want any help with FE CVS, the build system, 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.
18 years
[Bug 188623] Review Request: SOAPpy - Full-featured SOAP library for Python
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: SOAPpy - Full-featured SOAP library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188623
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From wart(a)kobold.org 2006-04-17 21:23 EST -------
All MUST and SHOULD items 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.
18 years
[Bug 188359] Review Request: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
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: bugzilla - bug tracking tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188359
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package-
|list(a)redhat.com |review(a)redhat.com
jwboyer(a)jdub.homelinux.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jwboyer(a)jdub.homelinux.org
------- Additional Comments From jwboyer(a)jdub.homelinux.org 2006-04-17 21:13 EST -------
I'll try to look into this soon. In the meantime, I think someone might ping
the RH bugzilla guy to take a look as well.
A couple questions:
1) why use a CVS tarball instead of a release?
2) BuildArch: is sufficient. No need to spell Architecture out.
Also, rpmlint doesn't throw any warnings or errors so that is 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.
18 years
[Bug 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
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: Monodevelop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904
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
------- Additional Comments From lyz27(a)yahoo.com 2006-04-17 21:05 EST -------
The boo spec needed to be modified to use the -root option for gacutil.
for lib in bin/Boo.Lang.dll bin/Boo.Lang.Useful.dll bin/Boo.Lang.Compiler.dll
bin/Boo.Lang.Parser.dll bin/Boo.Lang.Interpreter.dll bin/Boo.Lang.CodeDom.dll
bin/pt/Boo.Lang.resources.dll; do gacutil -i ${lib} -f -package boo -root
${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}; done
Unfortunatly.. It still doesn't work as
[root@localhost /]# cat `which booc`
#!/bin/sh
env /usr/bin/mono /usr/lib/boo/booc.exe "$@"
doesn't work as the exe is under /usr/lib64/boo not /usr/lib
--
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
[Bug 187932] Review Request: paraview - Parallel visualization application
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: paraview - Parallel visualization application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187932
bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QAContact|fedora-extras- |fedora-package-
|list(a)redhat.com |review(a)redhat.com
orion(a)cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From orion(a)cora.nwra.com 2006-04-17 18:29 EST -------
Checked in.
Added to owners.list
Builds are on their way. Needed to exclude ppc for now due to gcc ICE (bug
#189160).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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