[Bug 178360] Review Request: xmms-adplug

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: xmms-adplug


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178360


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-06-26 14:35 EST -------
Builds fine in mock and rpmlint is silent.

* 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:
   293808d1520d9d04c7909d4acb187943  adplug-xmms-1.2.tar.bz2
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   libadplugxmms.so()(64bit)
   xmms-adplug = 1.2-1.fc6
  =
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libXext.so.6()(64bit)
   libXi.so.6()(64bit)
   libadplug-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libbinio.so.1()(64bit)
   libgdk-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libglib-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgtk-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libxmms.so.1()(64bit)
* shared libraries are present, internal to xmms.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
    _libdir/xmms/Input is provided by xmms-libs, which is a dependency via
libxmms.so.1
* 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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]