Bug 563444
| Summary: | Review Request: Anumaan - A predictive text entry system | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Naveen Kumar <nkumar> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, nicolas.mailhot, nkumar, notting, panemade, petersen, psatpute |
| 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: | 2010-11-19 09:13:49 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: | 201449 | ||
|
Description
Naveen Kumar
2010-02-10 09:25:16 UTC
Maybe the package should just be called AnumaanLinux or even Anumaan? if alpha means alpha release? (I think the upstream naming scheme is not ideal but anyway.) AnumaanDefaultLM can't be packaged itself? Ok I will change the name to Anumaan and split AnumaanDefaultLM from it, and then resubmit. Any chance of fixing the upstream tarball rather than having all the chmod's in the spec file? Similarly better if Anumaan.sh became Anumaan. But I guess these are not blockers. (Anyway just some initial comments and impressions. :) (In reply to comment #4) > Ok I will change the name to Anumaan and split AnumaanDefaultLM from it, and > then resubmit. To be clear - you can update the submission and summary here (no need to open a new review.) (In reply to comment #5) > Any chance of fixing the upstream tarball rather > than having all the chmod's in the spec file? > Nope, I do have rights on CDAC Mumbai site now. > Similarly better if Anumaan.sh became Anumaan. > > But I guess these are not blockers. Done. Updated Spec: http://sandeeps.fedorapeople.org/anumaan/Anumaan.spec Updated SRPM: http://sandeeps.fedorapeople.org/anumaan/Anumaan-0.1-1.fc12.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1977292 Some of the informal reviews that I have done till now: 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559936 2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561270 3. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561271 4. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561289 5. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561225 6. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554234 7. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554260 8. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563013 9. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564466 10. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565376 Updated Spec file and SRPM Spec URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/Anumaan.spec SRPM URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/Anumaan-0.1-1.fc12.src.rpm Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2013106 Naveen, I have sponsored you now. Hope to see you you will continue reviewing packages and adding few more packages in Fedora. Welcome to Packager group. I am not familiar with Java packaging much but if someone can help you to complete this review then it will be good or then I will review this. Also, make sure bump the release whenever you submit new updated srpm. Thanks :) regards Naveen Both URLs in comment 11 are invalid. Closing this request, I will later make a new request with new enhancements on this application. |