May 2015 - i18n-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1173625] Review Request: fcitx-qt5 - Fcitx IM module for Qt5

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 --- Comment #10 from Liang Suilong <liangsuilong(a)gmail.com> --- OK. The review has been done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=pQ7TmkN1Qu&a=cc_unsubscribe

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1184707] New: Updated fontconfig package don't render font in google-chrome

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184707 Bug ID: 1184707 Summary: Updated fontconfig package don't render font in google-chrome Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: fontconfig Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: chepioq(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, pnemade(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com I test rawhide F22, and after update fontconfig (fontconfig-2.11.1-5.fc22 to fontconfig-2.11.92-1.fc22 ), fonts in google-chrome don't render well (see this screen shot : http://pix.toile-libre.org/upload/original/1421860184.jpg I downgrade to fontconfig-2.11.1-5.fc22 and all work well. Can you fixe this bug ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uIqe2YYS1J&a=cc_unsubscribe

8 years, 11 months

1
6
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1173625] Review Request: fcitx-qt5 - Fcitx IM module for Qt5

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 Robin Lee <robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #9 from Robin Lee <robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com> --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9859423 Scratch build succeeded. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Oe8osQp7CZ&a=cc_unsubscribe

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1186030] no layout for chromebook keyboard

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1186030 Benjamin Tissoires <btissoir(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- External Bug ID| |FreeDesktop.org 90684 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Rkyfoe5sHN&a=cc_unsubscribe

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1214032] Japanese input works at first login into KDE but does not work at the second login

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214032 --- Comment #15 from Mike FABIAN <mfabian(a)redhat.com> --- I tested more carefully an actually the behaviour is a bit different now on Fedora 22 final: • first login: - ibus icon is in the panel - I open a konsole (Alt+F2 “konsole”) - I select kanji-kana in the panel - Japanese typing in konsole works - logout without closing konsole • second login: - ibus icon is in the panel. This is *different* to my previous test in comment#0 - one konsole opens automatically, remembered from previous session - I select kanji-kana in the panel - Japanese typing does *not* work in konsole, I get ASCII - I open a new konsole from the first one by typing konsole & on the command line - typing Japanese works in the new konsole • third login: - same behaviour as with second session, two konsole windows open automatically, remembered from previous session. Japanese input does not work in these automatically opened konsole windows. But when opening more konsole windows by typing konsole & Japanese input works in the new konsole windows. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0a4RZtA6mC&a=cc_unsubscribe

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1214032] Japanese input works at first login into KDE but does not work at the second login

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214032 --- Comment #14 from Mike FABIAN <mfabian(a)redhat.com> --- Created attachment 1030530 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1030530&action=edit $HOME/.cache/imsettings/log $HOME/.cache/imsettings/log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JEElNO3Kfv&a=cc_unsubscribe

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1214032] Japanese input works at first login into KDE but does not work at the second login

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214032 Mike FABIAN <mfabian(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(mfabian(a)redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #13 from Mike FABIAN <mfabian(a)redhat.com> --- I can still reproduce it on Fedora 22 final. For me it works only on the first login. Fujiwara San writes in comment#11 that it works for him on the third login. For me it does not work on the third login either. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MU4CIL6Irr&a=cc_unsubscribe

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1222143] First day of week must be Monday on kk_KZ

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222143 --- Comment #5 from Baurzhan Muftakhidinov <baurthefirst(a)gmail.com> --- Ping -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3q8Kz9Msov&a=cc_unsubscribe

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1173625] Review Request: fcitx-qt5 - Fcitx IM module for Qt5

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 --- Comment #8 from Liang Suilong <liangsuilong(a)gmail.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 is included in %license. Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/1173625 -fcitx-qt5/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: fcitx-qt5-1.0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm fcitx-qt5-devel-1.0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm fcitx-qt5-1.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm fcitx-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fcitx-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: fcitx-qt5-debuginfo-1.0.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- fcitx-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib fcitx-qt5-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation fcitx-qt5.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libFcitxQt5WidgetsAddons.so.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 fcitx-qt5.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libFcitxQt5DBusAddons.so.1.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- fcitx-qt5-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake fcitx-qt5(x86-64) libFcitxQt5DBusAddons.so.1()(64bit) libFcitxQt5WidgetsAddons.so.1()(64bit) fcitx-qt5 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig fcitx(x86-64) libFcitxQt5DBusAddons.so.1()(64bit) libQt5Core.so.5()(64bit) libQt5DBus.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Gui.so.5()(64bit) libQt5Widgets.so.5()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libfcitx-config.so.4()(64bit) libfcitx-utils.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- fcitx-qt5-devel: fcitx-qt5-devel fcitx-qt5-devel(x86-64) fcitx-qt5: fcitx-qt5 fcitx-qt5(x86-64) libFcitxQt5DBusAddons.so.1()(64bit) libFcitxQt5WidgetsAddons.so.1()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- fcitx-qt5: /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/platforminputcontexts/libfcitxplatforminputcontextplugin.so Source checksums ---------------- http://download.fcitx-im.org/fcitx-qt5/fcitx-qt5-1.0.2.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b8073f07d9384878c616f6d2cea44fc739a3b5731b95b10b3133e0914d49f66d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b8073f07d9384878c616f6d2cea44fc739a3b5731b95b10b3133e0914d49f66d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1173625 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Rpmlint reports a warning of unused-direct-shlib-dependency. I think it should be fixed. And the new package should be made a scratch build for rawhide target on Fedora Koji. We should make sure it could be built on all Fedora primary architectures. If fcitx-qt5 could be built on Koji, please paste the link of koji result. Then I will pass the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kms548J2L7&a=cc_unsubscribe

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1173625] Review Request: fcitx-qt5 - Fcitx IM module for Qt5

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173625 Liang Suilong <liangsuilong(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |liangsuilong(a)gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ubNioNM39M&a=cc_unsubscribe

8 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

i18n-bugs May 2015