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: adplay https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177865 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-24 00:41 EST ------- Builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) and rpmlint is silent. Not much to say; it's a tiny package. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 18e1ac84b6f07d0388902a083f400da7 adplay-1.5.tar.bz2 * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (x86_64, development). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: adplay = 1.5-1.fc6 = libadplug-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit) libaudiofile.so.0()(64bit) libbinio.so.1()(64bit) libesd.so.0()(64bit) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review