package-review October 2006

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
1045 discussions

[Bug 210042] New: Review Request: fyre - Tool for producing computational artwork
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '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=210042 Summary: Review Request: fyre - Tool for producing computational artwork Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bdpepple(a)ameritech.net QAContact: fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/fyre/fyre.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/fyre/fyre-1.0.1-1.src.rpm Description: Fyre is a tool for producing computational artwork based on histograms of iterated chaotic functions. At the moment, it implements the Peter de Jong map in a fixed-function pipeline with an interactive GTK+ frontend and a command line interface for easy and efficient rendering of high-resolution, high quality images. -- 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 2

[Bug 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

1 0

[Bug 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

1 0

[Bug 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '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: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus(a)free.fr 2006-10-09 09:35 EST ------- (In reply to comment #25) > At the first glance (therefore I might be wrong) Debian's v8 patch includes > - LIBS="$LIBS -lssl" > + LIBS="$LIBS /usr/lib/libgnutls-openssl.so" > which I think that breaks x86_64 compatibility. That's exactly what I was referring to when saying that the switch to gnutls wasn't done cleanly. > I was not able to find an URL for the version of patch I use, the only ones > still available seem to be revisions 2, 8 and 9. I have included a commented > line in the spec which points to the current Debian patch. Ok. > As I have said, I prefer to have the patches named similar to the other patches > used by the RH packaging system (where the filenames end in "patch" rather then > "diff"). Patches may perfectly be named with .diff. But I have no problem if you prefer .patch. You should post an url to the updated src.rpm when you have changed it. I knew where to search but it is much less convenient, and a reviewer coming at the end of the review wouldn't find it. I still see one issue, the %{version} in Patch0 will lead to something wrong if it changes. It seems more prudent to hardcode the version instead. Not a blocker. And also some compiler warning may seem worrisome, stil not a blocker in my opinion. Here is the formal review: * rpmlint output is ignorable (right symlinks, virtual provides, alternative provide): W: ssmtp unversioned-explicit-provides MTA W: ssmtp unversioned-explicit-provides smtpdaemon W: ssmtp unversioned-explicit-provides %{_sbindir}/sendmail W: ssmtp symlink-should-be-relative /usr/sbin/sendmail.ssmtp /usr/sbin/ssmtp W: ssmtp symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/newaliases.ssmtp /usr/sbin/ssmtp W: ssmtp symlink-should-be-relative /usr/bin/mailq.ssmtp /usr/sbin/ssmtp * follows naming and packaging guidelines * free software, licence included * spec legible * source match upstream: 957e6fff08625fe34f4fc33d0925bbc9 ../SOURCES/ssmtp_2.61.orig.tar.gz * %files section right * use almost latest version, as the latest version corresponds with a debian patchset which may not be straightforward to include * sane provides: Provides: /usr/sbin/sendmail MTA config(ssmtp) = 2.61-8 smtpdaemon There is a controversy about smtpdaemon, so it is right to leave it to the packager. This is potentially approved once you are sponsored. You seem to be ready to follow the guidelines, you have the required skills. The most important thing is to be sure that you'll remain interested in maintaining your packages in fedora. I guess this will be the case since you didn't abandoned the submission after 5 months... I am almost ready to sponsor you. To be sure I would prefer if you could show even more interest in fedora extras by doing things advertized there: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored -- 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 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

1 0

[Bug 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '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: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 pertusus(a)free.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |pertusus(a)free.fr OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From pertusus(a)free.fr 2006-10-09 05:22 EST ------- I am a sponsor now. Looking at my first comment on the bug, it seems like I allready noticed that the patch is a debian patch, but forgot later... Notice that I consistently ask for this patch to be named like the debian one, however ;-). This is still not a blocker. As for being sponsored, you should have a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored in case you haven't allready. -- 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 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

1 0

[Bug 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '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: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus(a)free.fr 2006-10-09 05:06 EST ------- (In reply to comment #21) > Thank you for the new review. > > As suggested, I have removed the "provides" for the man pages and stubs which do > nothing. The provides for %{_mandir}/man5/ssmtp.conf.5.gz is still there, although this file is allready listed as a ssmtp file, and besides such a provides is of no use. > I have also added the "-p" switch, but a quick look shows no > differences in the behaviour... Maybe because %doc already preserves the > timestamps and man pages are gzipped before being packaged. Nothing else is > preserved from upstream. I was too lazy to check exactly but it may be relevant for other packages... > The fact that the included patches were retrieved from Debian and Mandrake > respectively is mentioned in the very first entry of the Changelog. I have > decided to rename the patches in order to maintain the more-or-less standard > policy of patch names used in RH. Indeed, I didn't remarked it... The mandrake patch is very simple so no issue. But in may opinion it would be better (though not a blocker) to have, in comment near the Patch:, the full url to the debian patch. > The included Debian patch is still at revision > 6 because > - major change in revision 7 is IPv6; the others are just Debian related. > Unfortunately I have no IPv6 support around and cannot test > - major change in rev 8 is the switch from openssl to gnutls. For the time being > I cannot afford to test this either because all of the machines I run ssmtp on > are production machines. > Not to mention that the first listed change in rev7 is "ssmtp maintained via > alioth: http://alioth.debian.org/projects/ssmtp/" but the link says "This > Project Has Not Released Any Files" :) > I will again into the SSL differences some time later, probably next month. >From a quick look at the latest debian patch, it seems ot me that the switch to gnutls hasn't been done very cleanly... If there is no security related changes (as it seems to be the case) it seems perfectly right to me not to use the latest patch. However it also seems very clear to me that the debian patchset is the new upstream for the otherwise dead ssmtp package, so updating the package really means using the latest debian patches. In my opinion, still, updating to the patchset 7 could be relevant, even if you cannot test ipv6, others could. I wouldn't personnaly make that a blocker. -- 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 187282] Review Request: sax2
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '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: sax2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187282 denis(a)poolshark.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From denis(a)poolshark.org 2006-10-09 04:49 EST ------- Marcus, I'm assuming you need to be sponsored. Adding FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Also there is traditionally strong resistance to accept SPEC files that contain non-Fedora related bits, so I think you have a much better chance to get this reviewed with a Fedora-only SPEC file. :-) -- 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 188400] Review Request: ssmtp
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Oct '06

09 Oct '06

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

package-review October 2006