[Bug 463400] New: Review Request: xmmsctrl - command line control utility for xmms
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.
Summary: Review Request: xmmsctrl - command line control utility for xmms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463400
Summary: Review Request: xmmsctrl - command line control
utility for xmms
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://6mata.com:8014/xmmsctrl/xmmsctrl.spec
SRPM URL: http://6mata.com:8014/xmmsctrl/xmmsctrl-1.8-2.src.rpm
Description: xmmsctrl is a small utility to control xmms from the command line.
Its goal is to be used coupled with sh to test xmms state and perform an
appropriate action, e.g. if playing then pause else play. The interest of this
is to bind keys in a window manager to have control over xmms with keys that do
play/next/pause, prev, control sound...
This is my first package and I am seeking a sponsor.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 7 months
[Bug 187317] Review Request: mindi
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187317
--- Comment #38 from Bruno Cornec <bruno.cornec(a)hp.com> 2008-10-06 10:20:40 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> We have an issue here. Fedora packages MUST be able to be built using ONLY the
> content of the Fedora repository. Hence the Require: mindi-busybox will prevent
> building mindi, as long as mindi-busybox is not a valid Fedora package. And I
> do not see even a review request for such a beast.
Yes. As the global project mondo was needing also buffer and afio, I chose to
began with those bricks which are external. I can easily make a request for
mindi-busybox once those have been accepted.
> Note that I believe that a fork of an existing package would not be accepted
> without an approval from the packaging committee. I am sure that a proper
> solution could be found, once the correct arguments are presented.
As already entioned many times, we nee a very well known version of busybox
during restore time (having some functions activated and other not) which we
rely deeply on. Upstream is maintaining such a project based on an older but
more stable (at least known) version of busybox in order to avoid unexpected
issues.
THat may evolve in the future but is now required. Hope this helps.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
15 years, 7 months
[Bug 457947] Review Request: oldstandard-fonts - Old Standard Fonts
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-10-05 23:49:58 EDT ---
rpmlint on binary package:
69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/69oldstandard-fonts-1/OFL-FAQ.txt
69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/69oldstandard-fonts-1/OFL.txt
69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Old Standard is an
attempt to provide a high quality font, suitable for classical, biblical and
medieval studies as well as for general-purpose typesetting in languages which
use Greek or Cyrillic script,
69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
(In reply to comment #2)
> The spec file and package name differ. Shouldn't the package be named
> 69oldstandard as you also originally submitted?
Rather I guess you intended to rename it to oldstandard-fonts.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 7 months