[Bug 190991] New: Review Request: libpar2
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=190991
Summary: Review Request: libpar2
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: normal
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink(a)leemhuis.info
ReportedBy: laurent.rineau__fc_extra(a)normalesup.org
QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Spec URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/libpar2.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.di.ens.fr/~rineau/Fedora/libpar2-0.2-1.src.rpm
Description: PAR 2.0 compatible file verification and repair library
libpar2 is a library for creating and using PAR2 files to detect damage
in data files and repair them if necessary. PAR2 files are usually
published in binary newsgroups on Usenet; they apply the data-recovery
capability concepts of RAID-like systems to the posting and recovery of
multi-part archives.
libpar2 is a required by gpar2.
Notice: I need a sponsor. As a matter of fact, this is not my first review request: par2cmdline (bug #190070) has been accepted, but i forgot to tell it was my first request. Actually, I discovered that par2cmdline code is two year old, while libpar2 (same authors) is still maintained and improved. I will submit of request for gpar2, a par2 graphical client, in a few minutes. I suggest that the two request are reviewed in a whole.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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, 9 months
[Bug 171541] Review Request: kimdaba: KDE Image Database
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: kimdaba: KDE Image Database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171541
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 rdieter(a)math.unl.edu 2006-07-06 10:29 EST -------
FYI, name deprecated, package renamed upstream to kphotoalbum.
--
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, 9 months
[Bug 187294] Review Request: gwyddion
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: gwyddion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294
------- Additional Comments From yeti(a)physics.muni.cz 2006-07-06 10:09 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> In that case the licence tag should be
> License: GPL
If everyone likes to repeat the common `GNU license' mistake just with the
second part of the name this time (there are dozens of SomeProgram General
Public Licenses that are not GNU GPL), if everyone thinks that `GPL' actually
denotes something, or that it should be put to the License field even it does
not mean anything, or that something should be put into the License field even
if the license of a large part of the software if very different, and above all
that the proper license acronym `GNU GPL' cannot be there, well, I can put GPL
or cauliflower or whatever there, no problem, the tag is obviously not supposed
to mean anything. But it isn't a technical issue so I won't make new src.rpm
now just to mangle one 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.
17 years, 9 months
[Bug 183953] Review Request: bit (A bit-oriented data stream parser and gtkmm widget set)
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: bit (A bit-oriented data stream parser and gtkmm widget set)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183953
bugs.michael(a)gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn|183322 |
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael(a)gmx.net 2006-07-06 06:56 EST -------
It must be "BuildRequires: cppunit-devel" instead of cppunit.
Apart from that:
* reported issues fixed
* packager is upstream
* APPROVED
Warnings:
- compiler warnings about type-punning are worrisome
(I see dangerous C-style casts in the code)
Suggested cleanup:
- Remove *.md5, *.map and *.dot files from the HTML documentation
(91 files in total).
Hints:
- Note that "mv docs/reference/html ." in your %install section
breaks --short-circuit installs, which are _very_ useful during
debugging of spec files. As a rule of thumb, never modify your
source tree in a way that repeating commands would fail. In this
case, better "cp" the html tree to somewhere.
"rpm --short-circuit -ivh bit.spec" should work again and 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.
17 years, 9 months
[Bug 177104] Review Request: abook - Text-based addressbook program for mutt
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: abook - Text-based addressbook program for mutt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177104
bugs.michael(a)gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|bugs.michael(a)gmx.net |bugzilla-sink(a)leemhuis.info
CC| |tcallawa(a)redhat.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |163776
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael(a)gmx.net 2006-07-06 05:04 EST -------
Withdrawing my approval from 2006-04-04. Back to FE-NEW.
See bug 177105 comment 14 for background.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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, 9 months
[Bug 177105] Review Request: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program
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: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177105
bugs.michael(a)gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|bugs.michael(a)gmx.net |bugzilla-sink(a)leemhuis.info
CC| |tcallawa(a)redhat.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163779 |163776
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael(a)gmx.net 2006-07-06 05:03 EST -------
Okay, everyone who reads this please listen:
Hereby I announce that I withdraw my approval from 2006-04-04
and move this ticket back into the FE-NEW queue. Too much time has
passed without action from the packager. Further, another package
submission from a different packager has been rejected (bug 188395),
but the software is still not in Fedora Extras after three months.
This simply doesn't work and is a major hindrance, IMO. An approved
package must not block other submissions for months. And it becomes
an extra burden for me as a 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.
17 years, 9 months