[Bug 429085] Review Request: libfishsound - Simple programming interface for Xiph.Org codecs

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: libfishsound - Simple programming interface for Xiph.Org codecs


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429085


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-01-17 21:54 EST -------
Builds OK; rpmlint says:
  libfishsound.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
   (spaces: line 1, tab: line 34)
Not a big deal; fix it if you like.

  libfishsound-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Of course; it's in the -doc package.

  libfishsound.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
   /usr/lib64/libfishsound.so.1.3.0 /usr/lib64/libogg.so.0
  libfishsound.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency 
   /usr/lib64/libfishsound.so.1.3.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
libfishsound.so is linked against libm and libogg even though it doesn't call
any functions in them.  Nice to fix them if you can, but not absolute blockers
if you can't.

The guidelines recommend -doc over -docs for the documentation.  (I keep
screwing this up myself.)

There's a typo in the URL tag; it needs another 'n'.

Is it true that this software supports FLAC as the description says?  The
"currently non-functional" comment in the spec would seem to indicate otherwise.


* source files match upstream:
   b714dcd3290b3a7cf8918c669a2d6c536e82ef04081a25c53e0d8b1f703af0f1  
   libfishsound-0.9.0.tar.gz
X The recommended name for documentation packages is *-doc.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
? description mentions flac, which might not be supported.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libfishsound-0.9.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
   libfishsound.so.1()(64bit)
   libfishsound = 0.9.0-1.fc9
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libfishsound.so.1()(64bit)
   libogg.so.0()(64bit)
   libspeex.so.1()(64bit)
   libvorbis.so.0()(64bit)
   libvorbisenc.so.2()(64bit)

  libfishsound-devel-0.9.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
   libfishsound-devel = 0.9.0-1.fc9
  =
   libfishsound = 0.9.0-1.fc9
   libfishsound.so.1()(64bit)
   pkgconfig

  libfishsound-docs-0.9.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm
   libfishsound-docs = 0.9.0-1.fc9
  =
   libfishsound = 0.9.0-1.fc9

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries present; ldconfig called properly.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* documentation is in a separate package.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* pkgconfig files are in the -devel package.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.