[Bug 199021] Review Request: zynaddsubfx - Real-time software synthesizer

[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: zynaddsubfx - Real-time software synthesizer


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199021


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-07-22 00:58 EST -------
Cool, looks good now and builds fine; rpmlint is silent.

I note that you don't use a dist tag.  It's not an absolute requirement but it
does simplify your maintenance overhead a bit because it allows you to use the
same spec for multiple distro releases.  I just want to make sure you intended
to leave it out.

The %description leaves a bit to be desired in the grammar department, which is
understandable given that the author is not a native speaker.  Plus "that you'll
boost to an amazing universe of sounds" does put a smile on my face.  I'm not
really sure what to suggest; how about just:

ZynAddSubFX is an open source software synthesizer capable of making a
countless number of instrument sounds.

or somesuch.

I'm not sure that anything you depend on owns /usr/share/icons or the
directories under it.  (At least in FC5.)

Your scriptlets are slightly different from those in 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets:
You don't call touch with --no-create; you don't use "||:" on the touch line, 
and you use /usr/bin instead of %{_bindir}.
I'm not sure what difference the first two make in practise.  The latter is a
stylistic issue; the macro is generally preferred over hardcoded paths, but the
suggested scriptlets are not consistent in this.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   fca8560e37d799bd20d17e22b11674d6  ZynAddSubFX-2.2.1.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* 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 (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   zynaddsubfx = 2.2.1-6
  =
   /bin/sh
   desktop-file-utils
   fltk >= 1.1.3
   jack-audio-connection-kit >= 0.101.1
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libXext.so.6()(64bit)
   libXft.so.2()(64bit)
   libXrender.so.1()(64bit)
   libasound.so.2()(64bit)
   libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit)
   libfftw3.so.3()(64bit)
   libfltk.so.1.1()(64bit)
   libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
   libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
   libjack.so.0()(64bit)
   liblash.so.2()(64bit)
   libmxml.so.1()(64bit)
   libuuid.so.1()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
   mxml >= 2.2
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
X owns the directories it creates. (/usr/share/icons)
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
? scriptlets present; differ from the suggested ones.
* 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.
* GUI app; desktop file installed properly.  No MIME types defined, so no need
to update the desktop database.

-- 
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]