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/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
Summary: Package review: sim Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mmaslano@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
This package needs a review for inclusion into fedora. Spec and (s)rpm could be found: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/sim
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From panemade@gmail.com 2007-12-05 07:28 EST ------- can't see any SPEC/SRPM
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
mmahut@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mmahut@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
mmahut@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(mmaslano@redhat.co | |m)
------- Additional Comments From mmahut@redhat.com 2007-12-05 08:46 EST ------- Hi Marcela,
+ Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. + Rpmline output is sane. + Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) + Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. (GPLv2+) + Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. (4bc30577e619e05252d394d51dc20747) + Package must own all directories that it creates. + Package does not contain duplicates in %files. + Permissions on files are set properly. + Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} + Latest version is packaged.
- Package does not compile in mock. You forgot to include autoconf and automake as BuildRequires, but also flex.
w/o autotools: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=275886&name=build.log w/ autoools: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=275917&name=build.log
Please fix these issues and let me know.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
mmaslano@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(mmaslano@redhat.co| |m) |
------- Additional Comments From mmaslano@redhat.com 2007-12-06 03:29 EST ------- Hm, in f-8 it's ok, but in f-9 failed dependency http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=278293&name=root.log
I think that's problem with new version of openssl and I've no other choice than wait for fixing BRs in these packages.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From mmahut@redhat.com 2007-12-30 15:51 EST ------- It's still failing due to missing kde config.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=315813&name=build.log
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From mmaslano@redhat.com 2008-01-02 04:46 EST ------- kde-config isn't missing, it wasn't found. I have something wrong in BR or configure.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
mmaslano@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(mmahut@redhat.com)
------- Additional Comments From mmaslano@redhat.com 2008-01-11 07:58 EST ------- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=341480 Ha I've fixed it. The spec was missing kdelibs3, kdelibs3-devel wasn't enough. Please check it again.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
pertusus@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus@free.fr
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2008-01-11 08:08 EST ------- I haven't looked at the details, but having to BuildRequires kdelibs3 seems wrong. Also you should post an url for the new srpm and spec file each time you make changes, the one I see seems old. There is not Source in this one, but maybe it is fixed in later ones.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From mmaslano@redhat.com 2008-01-15 06:55 EST ------- [7] I have to run configure and then create tar ball. Then I don't need kdelibs3, but my source differs from source on the web page. So what's the correct solution?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
mmahut@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(mmahut@redhat.com)|
------- Additional Comments From mmahut@redhat.com 2008-01-15 07:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8)
[7] I have to run configure and then create tar ball. Then I don't need kdelibs3, but my source differs from source on the web page. So what's the correct solution?
Why do you need first run configure and then create a tar archive? Can resolved it with a patch?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From mmaslano@redhat.com 2008-01-15 08:03 EST ------- Well yes, I can run configure and add to the patch created files ;-)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From mmaslano@redhat.com 2008-01-24 05:24 EST ------- Hm, somehow fixed itself. Now is it ok. http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/sim/
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2008-01-28 15:21 EST ------- Why the autoconf run? This shouldn't be needed? And the corresponding patch shouldn't be applied. Also it seems to me that make -f admin/Makefile.common and make -C plugins/remote clean # what the hell... are not needed (and certainly harmful).
xdg-open should be used instead of htmlview in the patch. It should be a Requires.
Why isn't the gkrellm subpackage always built?
The desktop_file shouldn't be conditional, but always true.
%{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should be used, not both.
for desktop-file-install, vendor should be fedora, and Application category is wrong.
Also no need for mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/applications if you use the file in that directory...
In the rm commands, -r is in general not needed since these are files. I would suggest also not using -f since this allows to find when things have changed.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2008-01-28 15:24 EST ------- There is one file under GPLv2 only, so the whole is GPLv2.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From mmaslano@redhat.com 2008-02-04 11:58 EST ------- Do you know how fix this? I'm looking on this issue ages :(
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sim-0.9.4.3' + desktop-file-install --vendor fedora --dir /var/tmp/sim-0.9.4.3-1.fc8-root-root/usr/share/applications/kde/sim.desktop Must specify one or more desktop files to install
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2008-02-04 18:44 EST ------- The command in the spec file looks good. What command did you use in Comment #14?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From mmaslano@redhat.com 2008-02-05 02:29 EST ------- desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \ --dir ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/applications/kde/sim.desktop
files -f %{name}.lang %{_datadir}/applications/fedora-sim.desktop
The whole spec is on: http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/sim/
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From mmahut@redhat.com 2008-03-11 12:29 EST ------- Sorry for the delay, I'm back to life :)
Where can I find the SRPM of this package?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim - Simple Instant Messenger
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Package review: sim |Package review: sim - Simple | |Instant Messenger
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim - Simple Instant Messenger Alias: sim-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
mmahut@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |sim-review
------- Additional Comments From mmahut@redhat.com 2008-04-24 03:01 EST ------- ping :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim - Simple Instant Messenger Alias: sim-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From mmaslano@redhat.com 2008-04-28 03:41 EST ------- I reinstall my computer and forgot to archive sim in non home directory :( But I've started again with upstream spec file.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim - Simple Instant Messenger Alias: sim-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
------- Additional Comments From mmaslano@redhat.com 2008-07-03 03:10 EST ------- http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/sim/
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Package review: sim - Simple Instant Messenger Alias: sim-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=411881
pahan@hubbitus.spb.su changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pahan@hubbitus.spb.su
------- Additional Comments From pahan@hubbitus.spb.su 2008-07-10 13:04 EST ------- I'm maintain this package for my rpm-repository for long time. For example for Fedora 9 builds located here: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/sim/
If you have nothing against, I wish maintain it for Fedora community.
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=411881
Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pandit@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(mmahut@redhat.com | |)
--- Comment #22 from Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pandit@gmail.com 2008-09-03 12:22:14 EDT --- @Marek
Interested in continuing review?
@Marcela - your call on #21
Thanks,
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=411881
--- Comment #23 from Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr 2008-09-03 12:47:36 EDT --- I remember I had to have a look at this, but currently I am very busy, but if this moves on I could have a look in the next weeks.
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=411881
Marcela Maslanova mmaslano@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mmahut@redhat.com | |) |
--- Comment #24 from Marcela Maslanova mmaslano@redhat.com 2008-09-04 02:37:29 EDT --- ^comment 21 That's great. I have already too many packages. I'll be happy when you maintain it.
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=411881
--- Comment #25 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.spb.su 2008-09-04 04:50:26 EDT --- @Marcela Maslanova, very thanks.
@Patrice Dumas, please wait to review, I'm update files shortly.
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=411881
--- Comment #26 from Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr 2008-09-04 08:58:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #25)
@Marcela Maslanova, very thanks.
@Patrice Dumas, please wait to review, I'm update files shortly.
You should open a new review and close this one as a duplicate.
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=411881
--- Comment #27 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.spb.su 2008-09-04 09:42:55 EDT --- Ok, I do that.
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=411881
Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.spb.su changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #28 from Pavel Alexeev pahan@hubbitus.spb.su 2008-09-04 09:43:54 EDT ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 461131 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org