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: audacious-plugins - Plugins for the Audacious media player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215165 ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2006-11-17 06:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #7) > Yeah, this also seems correct to me : No need to "provide" the old names, as > they shouldn't have been used other than explicitly (not from other package > requirements). The obsoletes are required though, to provide a clean upgrade > path, and are correct with the last known version. > > Please start the review ASAP or let me know if you'd like me to do it instead, > as I'm quite impatient to have this audacious update available ;-) Thanks for testing this package. Based on above comment Review + package builds in mock (development i386)FC7. + rpmlint is silent for SRPM. + rpmlint on RPMs is not silent but as per above comments in bugzilla they can be ignored. + source files match upstream. 8ac7f73da7432e1ffed6c2b9b0fced8c audacious-plugins-fedora-1.2.2.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + COPYING included in %doc. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc files. + no -devel subpackage exists + available subpackages are audacious-plugins-jack,audacious-plugins-arts, audacious-plugins-esd,audacious-plugins-pulseaudio + as subpackages are packaging .so files post and postun called /sbin/ldconfig + Used update-desktop-database correctly + no .la files. + no translations available - Does NOT owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. SHOULD:- I saw that some directories are owned in audacious rpm whereas there is no need to own them by audacious but it should be owned by audacious-plugins. like /usr/lib/audacious /usr/lib/audacious/Container /usr/lib/audacious/Effect /usr/lib/audacious/General /usr/lib/audacious/Input /usr/lib/audacious/Output /usr/lib/audacious/Visualization Make it own by audacious-plugins -- 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