package-review August 2006

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
1020 discussions

[Bug 166205] Review Request: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Aug '06

03 Aug '06

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: alleyoop : Graphical front-end to the Valgrind memory checker for x86 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166205 bugzilla(a)redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|fedora-extras- | |list(a)redhat.com | CC| |fedora-package- | |review(a)redhat.com tibbs(a)math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-08-03 17:53 EST ------- Someone on IRC acked about whether alleyoop had been submitted and a search turned up this review, stalled for eleven months now. Any chance of anything happening here? -- 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.

1 0

[Bug 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Aug '06

03 Aug '06

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: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 ------- Additional Comments From gemi(a)bluewin.ch 2006-08-03 12:33 EST ------- Further problems with font packages: - file /usr/share/X11/fonts/apl is not owned by any package file /usr/share/X11/fonts/apl/pcf is not owned by any package file /usr/share/X11/fonts/apl/TTF is not owned by any package - The fonts.dir and fonts.scale files should be shipped with the packages. - AFAIK, /usr/share/X11/fonts is not in the font path. The KAPL font is not seen by fontconfig, better put it in a subdirectory of /usr/share/fonts. -- 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.

1 0

[Bug 174021] Review Request: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Aug '06

03 Aug '06

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: aplus-fsf - Advanced APL Interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174021 gemi(a)bluewin.ch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gemi(a)bluewin.ch ------- Additional Comments From gemi(a)bluewin.ch 2006-08-03 12:20 EST ------- The release has the following problems: - aplus.el contains /usr/local/bin/a+ instead of /usr/bin/a+ - on startup of a+ /usr/lib/idap.+: No such file or directory somethere a path /usr/lib must be changed to /usr/lib/a+ -- 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.

1 0

[Bug 187609] Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Aug '06

03 Aug '06

1 0

[Bug 187609] Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Aug '06

02 Aug '06

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: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187609 ------- Additional Comments From kevin(a)tummy.com 2006-08-02 19:00 EST ------- Two issues left that I see: 1. rpmlint still complains about W: tre mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs The top part of your tre.spec file uses tabs instead of spaces. This isn't a blocker, but might be nice to replace those tabs with spaces for consistancy. 2. Instead of ExclusiveArch, you should use ExcludeArch on x64... Even though there has been no testing on ppc, it should probibly be included until there is a report of it not working, it shouldn't be excluded just because you aren't able to test it. From the package review guidelines: - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc -- 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.

1 0

[Bug 187609] Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Aug '06

02 Aug '06

1 0

[Bug 187609] Review Request: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Aug '06

02 Aug '06

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: tre - POSIX compatible regexp library with approximate matching https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187609 ------- Additional Comments From kevin(a)tummy.com 2006-08-02 14:51 EST ------- ok, here's a review: OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (LGPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 8b4bfb078f2cc9e01f37d3d251672f75 tre-0.7.4.tar.bz2 8b4bfb078f2cc9e01f37d3d251672f75 tre-0.7.4.tar.bz2.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. See below - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage. OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. See below - No rpmlint output. Issues: 1. Not a blocker, but you might consider using a dist tag: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag 2. The devel package should Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 3. rpmlint has some output: (all warnings, but should be cleaned up) W: agrep summary-ended-with-dot Approximate grep utility. W: tre macro-in-%changelog doc W: tre macro-in-%changelog post W: tre mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs W: tre-devel summary-ended-with-dot Development files for use with the tre package. W: tre-devel no-documentation (the last one should be ignored) 4. You mention crashes with the x86_64 version. Perhaps the package should be ExcludeArch'ed for now until the bug is found/fixed? I don't have a x86_64 or ppc test machine here, perhaps someone else would like to give it a try on those arches before approval? -- 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.

1 0

[Bug 199833] New: Review Request: vips - image processing library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Aug '06

02 Aug '06

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=199833 Summary: Review Request: vips - image processing library 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: adam(a)spicenitz.org QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com Spec URL: http://www.spicenitz.org/fedora/vips.spec SRPM URL: http://www.spicenitz.org/fedora/vips-7.10.20-1.src.rpm Description: VIPS is an image processing library. It is good for very large images (even larger than the amount of RAM in your machine), and for working with color. -- 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.

1 6

[Bug 171993] Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Aug '06

02 Aug '06

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: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171993 ------- Additional Comments From redhat(a)nslm.org 2006-08-02 09:59 EST ------- I seem to have gained an unpacked log file too this time... Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/mpich2-1.0.4-1-root-root error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/libTraceInput.la /usr/lib/libTraceInput.so /usr/share/logfiles/barrier.rlog -- 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.

1 0

[Bug 171993] Review Request: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Aug '06

02 Aug '06

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: mpich2 - An implementation of MPI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171993 ------- Additional Comments From dakingun(a)gmail.com 2006-08-02 09:31 EST ------- mpich2-1.0.3 build setup is broken in a couple of place which might explain that, had to patch it myself to build properly on Fedora. However ver. 1.0.4 seems to be much better, I'm uploading it now you can give it a try. ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/mpich2/mpich2-1.0.4-1.src.rpm ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/mpich2/mpich2.spec -- 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.

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

package-review August 2006