[Bug 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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: php-shout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-07-03 14:15 EST -------
Sorry, that's incorrect. Applications which are simply written in PHP are OK.
Extensions to PHP, either PEAR, PECL, or binary are not to be approved until we
have guidelines for packaging them.
Feel free to join the fedora-packaging list and help us to complete those
guidelines.
--
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 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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: php-shout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445
------- Additional Comments From holbrookbw(a)users.sourceforge.net 2006-07-03 13:51 EST -------
I thought (also in comment 36 and comment 37) that the php moratorium only
applied to packages containing php code or pear/pecl packages, not packages
containing binary extensions to the php engine, like this one.
--
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 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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: php-shout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-07-03 13:43 EST -------
I have to agree; we should pick one thing and stick with it. However,
unfortunately the PHP guidelines did not pass at the recent packaging committee
meeting, so I cannot approve this package at this time no matter what happens to
the guidelines.
I will make sure that the ratified guidelines include the proper macros for
extracting the PHP API version and the review this package against those.
Honestly, my preference will be to avoid BS like "be_happy_mock" or hardcoding a
specific default API version and just using "0". The only requirement is that
the result after the macro expansions be a specfile with the proper syntax so
that the initial BuildRequires can be extracted. It shouldn't even be necessary
to play with the extdir define.
--
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 181445] Review Request: php-shout
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: php-shout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181445
------- Additional Comments From holbrookbw(a)users.sourceforge.net 2006-07-03 13:31 EST -------
No offense guys, but debate about these macros have been going on for over 3
months now, and I've made several new rpm releases just to appease one reviewer
or the next, and I'm tired of going back and forth. Christopher's latest
recommendation look like exactly what I started with, and I'm not real keen on
spending all this time just to end up back where I started.
SO, since Jason is the one actually assigned to this review and will be the one
to sponsor me, I leave it to him to decide what the final macros should be.
--
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 184080] Review Request: webmin
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: webmin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184080
kevin(a)tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From kevin(a)tummy.com 2006-07-03 12:23 EST -------
I'm closing this review.
Please re-submit with a new spec if there is still interest.
--
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 179758] Review Request: Eiciel (ACL editor)
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: Eiciel (ACL editor)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179758
------- Additional Comments From fedora(a)adslpipe.co.uk 2006-07-03 07:18 EST -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> Is this still your first package?
yes it is
> If so, you should add the bug FE-NEEDSPONSOR
> to the list of bugs this one blocks.
Ok, thanks for the prod, I'll update to latest source, push new versions, and
then add the blocker
--
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