Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 176373
Summary: | Review Request: ytalk | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mike McGrath <imlinux> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kevin Fenzi <kevin> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list, jeff |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-02-16 09:05:40 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Mike McGrath
2005-12-21 21:16:58 UTC
Doh! You beat me to this one. I was going to contribute ytalk. Oh well. I snooze I lose. One thing, though. As of 3.3.0, ytalk no longer supports X. The developer's site says "at the request of many users." I'd sure like to know what is wrong with those users because in my opinion, the X support was the most important feature of ytalk. Now it's all but useless to me. :( So, as I was saying, I had plans to package ytalk, but didn't get to it in time. I was considering version 3.2.0 since it still supports X. Would you consider packaging that release instead, to include X support? I thought it was odd too that users requested the support to be removed. Normally I'd think users would simply not use a feature they didn't want. My main concern with using 3.2.0 is that if the upstream has further releases (security or otherwise) it will become more and more difficult to support the package. It's also possible there is another maintainer of ytalk (it seems to have jumped around quite a bit) If we could find another maintainer that actively maintains ytalk and still supports X I'd be happy to use them as an upstream instead of www.impul.se I forgot to mention earlier that I do not currently have a sponsor. Greetings. I was going to do a review of this package, but the URL(s) in the submission appear to not be functional. testapp1.iesabroad.org doesn't resolve here. Can you update the ulrs and then I will be happy to do a review. I forgot to update this link. The new locations are at: SRPM: http://mmcgrath.net/~mmcgrath/ytalk/ytalk-3.3.0-2.src.rpm SPEC: http://mmcgrath.net/~mmcgrath/ytalk/ytalk.spec Also I've been sponsored since posting this bug. Greetings, heres a review: MUST items: OK - package name good. OK - license ok. (GPL) OK - spec file matches. OK - spec in english. OK - spec legible. OK - md5sum matches: c043a8d854638b293a3b645d8600aa38 ytalk-3.3.0.tar.gz c043a8d854638b293a3b645d8600aa38 ytalk-3.3.0.tar.gz.1 OK - files and dirs ok. OK - clean section good. OK - macros good. OK - builds ok in fc4. OK - compiles and builds under devel. OK - builds ok in mock on devel. OK - rpmlint has no output. Minor/non blockers: - Might include COPYING, README, AUTHORS, Changelog as docs? APPROVED. I've added the doc's. Thanks for the review. |