March 2010 - i18n-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 569352] Broken dependencies for 1:openoffice.org-langpack-en-3.2.0-12.7.fc13.x86_64

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=569352 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(svidal(a)redhat.com | |) --- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-03-11 00:03:21 EST --- Seth, can you offer any clues - I stared at yum-langpacks-0.1.4/langpacks.py for a bit (original code is by Bill as a PoC) but I confess I don't really understand the low-level rpm transactions (with python) enough to fix this quickly. (It is lucky we turned on Bodhi for f13 and caught this in time...) Is there a way to filter out current packages that are being replaced? -- 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.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 565086] New: FTBFS sazanami-fonts-0.20040629-9.fc13

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: FTBFS sazanami-fonts-0.20040629-9.fc13 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565086 Summary: FTBFS sazanami-fonts-0.20040629-9.fc13 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All URL: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/mo ck-results/ OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Keywords: Triaged Severity: high Priority: high Component: sazanami-fonts AssignedTo: tagoh(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: ftbfs(a)fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: tagoh(a)redhat.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com Blocks: 538681 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora sazanami-fonts-0.20040629-9.fc13.src.rpm Failed To Build From Source against the rawhide tree. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FTBFS for more information. If you believe this is actually a bug in another package, do NOT change the component in this bug or close this bug. Instead, add the appropriate bug number from the other package to the "Depends on" line in this bug. If the other package does not yet have a bug created that you think matches, please create one. Doing so helps us properly track bugs and their dependencies, just as we track package dependencies. (If you close this bug, and the other package is not fixed before the next FTBFS run, a new bug will get created. Please follow the above advice to avoid such duplication.) -- 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.

14 years, 2 months

1
3
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 562366] Review request: zinnia - online handwriting recognition system with machine learning

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=562366 --- Comment #26 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-03-10 17:23:18 EST --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- 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.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 562366] Review request: zinnia - online handwriting recognition system with machine learning

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=562366 Liang Suilong <liangsuilong(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- 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.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 562366] Review request: zinnia - online handwriting recognition system with machine learning

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=562366 --- Comment #25 from Liang Suilong <liangsuilong(a)gmail.com> 2010-03-10 10:53:14 EST --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: zinnia Short Description: Online handwriting recognition system with machine learning Owners: liangsuilong Branches: F-11 F-12 F-13 devel InitialCC: liangsuilong Cvsextras Commits: yes -- 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.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 562366] Review request: zinnia - online handwriting recognition system with machine learning

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=562366 Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #24 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com> 2010-03-10 10:32:24 EST --- ================ *** APPROVED *** ================ -- 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.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 562366] Review request: zinnia - online handwriting recognition system with machine learning

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=562366 --- Comment #23 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com> 2010-03-10 07:31:03 EST --- formal review here: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. <<output if not already posted>> [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this list and more] [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. <<md5sum checksum>>78462a619ad63772683666e3eefc092e [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [N/A] 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. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [N/A] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [N/A] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [-] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [N/A] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [N/A] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [N/A] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [N/A] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [N/A] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [N/A] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. -- 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.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 562366] Review request: zinnia - online handwriting recognition system with machine learning

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=562366 --- Comment #22 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com> 2010-03-10 07:25:04 EST --- rpmlint is not everything, we should no rely on it, especially for spelling. > zinnia.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> > customization, customize, customarily customizable is right, here we need a adjective. zinnia.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libzinnia.so.0.0.0 > exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5 The warning may be lead by other share-libs. Here I add %doc README COPYING in all %file sections. The warning disappears. Is it OK? We don't need add README COPYING to -devel, -utils, -perl, -python subpackages, the warnings can be omitted. -- 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.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 569352] Broken dependencies for 1:openoffice.org-langpack-en-3.2.0-12.7.fc13.x86_64

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=569352 --- Comment #12 from Mattia <mattia.verga(a)tiscali.it> 2010-03-10 06:49:50 EST --- Today both openoffice.org-core-3.2.0-12.10 and hunspell.x86_64 0:1.2.8-17 hit the fedora repo. The openoffice update went fine without any langpack error, confirming my guess about the error to be related to updating from different repos. However I continue to get "package hunspell-it-2.4-0.4.20070901.fc13.noarch is already installed" like reported also by Feliciano Matias. -- 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.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 544957] New: VL Gothic should provide Sans fallback

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: VL Gothic should provide Sans fallback https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544957 Summary: VL Gothic should provide Sans fallback Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: vlgothic-fonts AssignedTo: extras-orphan(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: petersen(a)redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: tagoh(a)redhat.com, extras-orphan(a)fedoraproject.org, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Description of problem: vlgothic-fonts.noarch currently only aliases Monospace whereas vlgothic--p-fonts aliases Sans-serif, but we only install vlgothic-fonts.noarch by default so no Japanese Sans defined by default on the desktop. vlgothic-fonts.noarch should also alias Sans-serif as a fallback. -- 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.

14 years, 2 months

1
7
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

i18n-bugs March 2010