package-review June 2006

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
1071 discussions

[Bug 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple(a)ameritech.net 2006-06-03 11:10 EST ------- (In reply to comment #38) > Okay, I've sorted #36 and #37 for the most part, except I'm not sure how to > handle the desktop file and for the LOCALES, am I okay to just have > > %{_datadir}/locale/* > > or would that cause problems? That is a blocker. Packages MUST handle locales correctly, which is done by using the %find_lang macro. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-8c605ebf8330f6d505f… Information on how to handle desktop files can be found here:http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a… Also, you missing the scriptlets needed to for mimeinfo. Most of the issues can be solved by reading the Packaging Guideline fully. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 ------- Additional Comments From paul(a)all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-03 10:45 EST ------- Okay, I've sorted #36 and #37 for the most part, except I'm not sure how to handle the desktop file and for the LOCALES, am I okay to just have %{_datadir}/locale/* or would that cause problems? -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple(a)ameritech.net 2006-06-03 10:25 EST ------- Also, don't add filesystem as a Requirement. Comment #33 was incorrect in suggesting this, since the error was due to your handling of directories in the %file section -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple(a)ameritech.net 2006-06-03 10:19 EST ------- Couple of quick items: 1. Dekstop file is not handled correctly. 2. Locals are no handled correctly. 3. In the files section to simplify it, why don't you use '%{_datadir}/mime/application/*.xml'? This would be much easier than listing each file. 4. Don't package the generic INSTALL 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 ------- Additional Comments From paul(a)all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-03 09:38 EST ------- Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodevelop.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/monodevelop-0.11-3.src.rpm Addresses the problems in #33 and #34 I've also addressed the same issue in gtksourceview-sharp (178902 IIRC). -- 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 178901] Review Request: gtksourceview-sharp
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '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: gtksourceview-sharp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178901 ------- Additional Comments From paul(a)all-the-johnsons.co.uk 2006-06-03 09:37 EST ------- Spec Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/gtksourceview-sharp.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/packages/gtksourceview-sharp-2.0-9.src.rpm Changed do the libdir bits are explicit rather than just make everything mine Now please, someone, review it and let's get going on it! -- 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 182415] Review Request: man-pages-uk - Ukrainian man pages from Linux Documentation Project
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '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: man-pages-uk - Ukrainian man pages from Linux Documentation Project https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182415 ------- Additional Comments From andy(a)smile.org.ua 2006-06-03 08:35 EST ------- What the manuals are non-utf8 exactly? I review all manuals in tarball and find nothing non-utf mans. I've catched the package version from a VERSION Makefile's variable. Is it not correct? -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple(a)ameritech.net 2006-06-03 08:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #33) > It seems this package owns some directories already owned by shared-mime-info, > as well as some other directories onto /usr/share/mime. > This is due to problems in the %files section of the spec file (in particular the '%{_datadir}/*'). This seems to be a constant problem, which I've noticed with other packages I've reviewed for Paul. -- 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 178904] Review Request: Monodevelop
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '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: Monodevelop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178904 fedora(a)iagorubio.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora(a)iagorubio.com ------- Additional Comments From fedora(a)iagorubio.com 2006-06-03 07:58 EST ------- It seems this package owns some directories already owned by shared-mime-info, as well as some other directories onto /usr/share/mime. [iago@puhisher share]$ rpm -qf /usr/share/mime shared-mime-info-0.17-1.fc5.1 monodevelop-0.11-2 [iago@puhisher share]$ rpm -qf /usr/share/mime/packages shared-mime-info-0.17-1.fc5.1 monodevelop-0.11-2 [iago@puhisher share]$ rpm -ql monodevelop | grep mime | grep -v .xml$ /usr/share/mime /usr/share/mime/XMLnamespaces /usr/share/mime/aliases /usr/share/mime/application /usr/share/mime/globs /usr/share/mime/magic /usr/share/mime/mime.cache /usr/share/mime/packages /usr/share/mime/subclasses /usr/share/mime/ May be it's worth to fix it now to avoid the case of /usr/share/applications. [iago@puhisher share]$ rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/share/applications gnome-media-2.14.0-2 bug-buddy-2.14.0-1 glade2-2.12.1-2 gnome-utils-2.14.0-4.fc5.1 nautilus-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 openoffice.org-calc-2.0.2-5.12.2 gthumb-2.7.5.1-1.fc5.1 openoffice.org-impress-2.0.2-5.12.2 eog-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 file-roller-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 gnome-system-monitor-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 gedit-2.14.2-1.fc5.1 openoffice.org-draw-2.0.2-5.12.2 openoffice.org-writer-2.0.2-5.12.2 gnome-session-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 openoffice.org-math-2.0.2-5.12.2 gdm-2.14.4-1.fc5.1 gnome-terminal-2.14.1-1.fc5.1 gnome-games-2.14.1-1.fc5.3 gftp-2.0.18-3.2.1 filesystem-2.3.7-1.2.1 monodevelop-0.11-2 I think all those packages should require filesystem to avoid this mess up - or require nothing explicitly, assuming filesystem is already installed. Otherwise the monodevelop package looks and works fine here. -- 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 187430] Review Request: elektra
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jun '06

03 Jun '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: elektra https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus(a)free.fr 2006-06-03 07:15 EST ------- (In reply to comment #33) There is still an issue, with kdb dlopening libelektratools. Indeed, libelektratools.so is in elektra-devel, so kdb cannot dlopen libelektratool. For example at install time [root@patoune ~]# rpm -Uvh /home/dumas/RPM-fc/RPMS/i386/elektra-0.6.2-1.i386.rpm Préparation... ########################################### [100%] 1:elektra ########################################### [100%] kdbLibLoad : libelektratools.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directorykdb: XML importing and editing disabled kdbLibLoad : libelektratools.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directorykdb: XML importing and editing disabled > How and where to ask for a sponsor ? First of all make that bug block FE-NEEDSPONSOR Ask on the fedora-extras-list for a sponsor pointing out your comments on other people package reviews, participate in the discussions on the fedora extras mailing lists, subscribe to the cvs commit extras mailing list, watch the changes for the packages you are interested in and comment on them when you have something to say, submit bug reports when you have found limitations in other people packages. -- 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

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 June 2006