[Bug 471480] Review Request: sfxr - Sound effect generator
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Nov 14 00:07:26 UTC 2008
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=471480
manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> 2008-11-13 19:07:25 EDT ---
Would have been nice if the spec URL above would have been valid :)
Anyway, here we go, using only the src.rpm :
Package Review
==============
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: devel/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: MIT
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, c
ontaining 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 match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 9b511df1f39e99374063b89c78e7577d82c79ac2 sfxr-sdl.zip
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[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.
[x] 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] 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.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Final provides and requires are sane:
=== 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.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64, devel/i386
[-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:
[!] Package functions as described.
Unable to test in this moment. The application does start and does not crash,
but I have not been able to see any of the slides / buttons doing anything.
Maybe because I am remote...
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[-] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Final Notes ===
1. Please try to push usptream your relevant patches. At least one of them
seems to deal with an unitialized field in SDL.
================
*** APPROVED ***
================
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list