http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472 solarflow99(a)gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |solarflow99(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from solarflow99(a)gmail.com 2009-04-02 00:55:58 --- (In reply to comment #0) # rpmlint dynamips* 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I guess this package has been reviewed already? rpmlint output is clean, however I only see the x86_64.rpm no SRC or i386 rpm? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472 --- Comment #3 from solarflow99(a)gmail.com 2009-04-03 03:01:20 --- (In reply to comment #2) I can't build the package with my test system here but, it seems to look ok, I dont see any obvious errors. This is about as far as I can review this package myself, hoping a sponsor can take it from here.. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472 Michal Ambroz <rebus(a)seznam.cz&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rebus(a)seznam.cz --- Comment #5 from Michal Ambroz <rebus(a)seznam.cz&gt; 2010-03-29 03:49:22 --- Hello, I would like to contribute to the formal review of the package: Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [X] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: FC12 i686 [X] Rpmlint output: False positive spellcheck warnings about Hypervisor - word is commonly used in given context rpmlint dynamips-0.2.7-5.fc12.src.rpm dynamips-0.2.7-5.fc12.i686.rpm dynamips-debuginfo-0.2.7-5.fc12.i686.rpm dynamips.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Hypervisor -> Hyper visor, Hyper-visor, Supervisory dynamips.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hypervisor -> hyper visor, hyper-visor, supervisory dynamips.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Hypervisor -> Hyper visor, Hyper-visor, Supervisory dynamips.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hypervisor -> hyper visor, hyper-visor, supervisory 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [X] Package is not relocatable. [X] Buildroot is correct [X] Package is licensed with GPLv2 [?] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. license is not explicitly mentioned in all the files, however it is clearly stated in the Changelog [X] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [X] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [X] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [-] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: [X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [X] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [X] Permissions on files are set properly. [X] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [X] Package consistently uses macros. [X] Package contains code, or permissable content. [X] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [X] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [X] Latest version is packaged. [X] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [X] Package functions as described - it was possible to start the virtual machine and get to IOS prompt [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472 Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |supercyper(a)163.com --- Comment #7 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-04-27 12:24:19 --- Lucian, ping? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472 --- Comment #9 from Chen Lei <supercyper(a)163.com&gt; 2010-04-28 05:55:03 --- (In reply to comment #8) Thanks, some people in redhat bugzilla request for this program as well as GNS3, I'll try to review this package in two weeks. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hobbes1069(a)gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2011-10-06 16:32:40 --- Is upstream still active on this? The last official release looked to be from 2007. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472 --- Comment #12 from solarflow99(a)gmail.com 2011-10-06 18:46:14 --- It was almost ready too, I don't know what was stopping it from a creating a build. Maybe no one really cares about it enough, its a shame to build a package no one bothers to use. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Blocks|2, 718 | Resolution|--- |EXPIRED --- Comment #14 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; --- GNS3 is a fedora 25 feature, but I don't know if dynamips could be added given the new policy about emulator there. Please re-open if still relevant for RPM Fusion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.