October 2006 - package-review - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 193784] New: Review Request: linuxdcpp - A port of DC++ to Linux

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193784 Summary: Review Request: linuxdcpp - A port of DC++ to Linux 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: andy(a)smile.org.ua QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com Spec URL: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/linuxdcpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://andriy.asplinux.com.ua/pub/people/andy/extras/linuxdcpp-0.0-0.2.20060601cvs.src.rpm Description: This is a mostly working port of DC++ to Linux. (or Unix-likes in general, but there might be issues. It's only tested on Linux anyway) The name is not really decided upon, Wulfor is kind of the development name (think "Longhorn" from Microsoft) until we come up with something better (Linux DC++ or something like that is just too boring). -- 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, 7 months

1
8
0 / 0

[Bug 196379] New: Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196379 Summary: Review Request: kdeartwork-extras: Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers 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: rdieter(a)math.unl.edu QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com Spec URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/kdeartwork-extras.spec SRPM URL: http://kde-redhat.unl.edu/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/kdeartwork-extr... Description: KDE Artwork Extras, including xscreensaver-based screensavers -- 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, 7 months

1
25
0 / 0

[Bug 177747] Review Request: glade3

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: glade3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177747 ------- Additional Comments From bbbush.yuan(a)gmail.com 2006-10-02 01:49 EST ------- Hi, I'm not an FE contributor, and I didn't bother reading those instructions. Please help me if anyone would sponsor me, thanks! No, there is no standalone spec and src.rpm, only cvs version available. We may have a directory on ftp.fedora.cn for this purpose later. -- 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, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 177747] Review Request: glade3

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: glade3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177747 tibbs(a)math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|gdk(a)redhat.com |nobody(a)fedoraproject.org OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 2006-10-02 00:35 EST ------- First off, is there still any interest in getting this package into Extras? Unfortunately this ticket did not properly block FE-NEW, it seems nobody ever noticed that it was even here. It looks like it wasn't submitted through the normal review request submission form. Secondly, if there is still interest, could we get direct links to a specfile and a src.rpm? Finally, I don't see that the submitter is a member of cvsextras, so I'll block FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Feel free to unblock if that's incorrect. -- 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, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 182173] Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator

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: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182173 ed(a)eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |182175 -- 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, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 182175] Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm)

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: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182175 ed(a)eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182173 nThis| | -- 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, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 182173] Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator

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: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182173 ed(a)eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From ed(a)eh3.com 2006-10-01 23:22 EST ------- Hi Terje, the license issue does appear to be cleaned up. The no-money one is gone but the LGPL-ed bits remain. I'm no lawyer but it seems OK to link together the LGPL-ed parts with BSD code. There are some suspicious bits such as: 1) literally hundreds of "pointer targets ... differ in signedness" warnings which are worrisome but perhaps ignorable 2) there appear to be some missing BuildRequires and/or some missing functionality such as: checking for Etwin support... checking for Tw_Open in -lTw... no configure: WARNING: *** Twin support has been disabled because libTw was not found *** and I think libXmu-devel needs to be a BR since I don't see how it gets pulled in by any of the other BRs. Please take a look. In any case, the remaining review items are: + source matches upstream + license now appears to be OK and is correctly included + builds on FC5 i386 + rpmlint reports no errors or warnings + package and spec naming OK + spec is legible + builds on FC5 i386 + no locales + shared libs OK + not relocatable + dir ownership looks good + no file dupes + permissions OK + has %clean + consistent use of macros + code not content (although there are a number of background pixmaps that could be split off into a separate package if one desires) + docs are small and not needed for execution + no static, *.la, or devel libs + no headers or pkgconfig + has desktop file with desktop-file-install which appears sane It'll be easy enough to sort out the BuildRequires with mock as soon as libast is in Extras so we can leave that for later. And I don't see any remaining blockers so its APPROVED. -- 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, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 182173] Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator

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: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182173 ed(a)eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn|182175 | -- 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, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 182175] Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm)

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: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182175 ed(a)eh3.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841, 182173 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From ed(a)eh3.com 2006-10-01 22:16 EST ------- Hi Terje, heres another review of the latest version: sha1sum: b2a70e12f25099c4565f54fae7a25e66e478a22f libast-0.7.1-0.1.20060818cvs.src.rpm + rpmlint reports: "W: libast-devel no-documentation" which can be safely ignored + spec file name and package name OK + license OK and correctly included + spec is legible and looks sane + source appears to match upstream (pulled from CVS) + builds in mock for FC5 i386 + no locale(s) + shared lib handling looks OK + no *.la or *.a + not relocatable + dir ownership OK + no duplicate files + permissions look OK + clean OK + macros look OK + code not content + no large docs + no runtime doc dependencies + correct use of -devel There were a few warnings during the compile [mostly, ignored return types and pointer type mismatches] but I don't see any actual blockers. This is somewhat redundant (since Jochen already approved in comment #10 but he is not currently a sponsor): APPROVED. So if you haven't already been sponsored then please go ahead and request sponsorship and I'll approve it. And I'll look at the updated Eterm submission next... -- 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, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 187196] Review Request: kernel-module-rt2500

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: kernel-module-rt2500 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187196 kevin(a)tummy.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin(a)tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO| |208686 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From kevin(a)tummy.com 2006-10-01 17:18 EST ------- Kyle: Any news? Would you be willing to close this in favor of the more up to date 202528 submission? -- 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, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

package-review October 2006