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