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: gstreamer-plugins-pulse - GStreamer 0.10 plugin for the PulseAudio sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224402 jeff@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: gst-pulse - |Review Request: gstreamer- |GStreamer 0.10 plugin for |plugins-pulse - GStreamer |the PulseAudio sound server |0.10 plugin for the | |PulseAudio sound server Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From jeff@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-27 01:13 EST ------- * source files match upstream $ md5sum gst-pulse-0.9.4.tar.gz* 7c60018e8b9ce7f62c7078bee5851f07 gst-pulse-0.9.4.tar.gz 7c60018e8b9ce7f62c7078bee5851f07 gst-pulse-0.9.4.tar.gz.1 $ sha1sum gst-pulse-0.9.4.tar.gz* 6f8fd58d3f3a17e4c5e2c8b59d4ab06453082240 gst-pulse-0.9.4.tar.gz 6f8fd58d3f3a17e4c5e2c8b59d4ab06453082240 gst-pulse-0.9.4.tar.gz.1 * 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. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (fc6, i386) * package installs properly. ! rpmlint says: E: gstreamer-plugins-pulse script-without-shebang /usr/share/doc/gstreamer-plugins-pulse-0.9.4/README.Fedora Either specify a mode ("install -m 644 -p") or use "cp" to get the file into the build directory. E: gstreamer-plugins-pulse description-line-too-long gstreamer-plugins-pulse is a GStreamer 0.10 plugin for the PulseAudio sound server. E: gstreamer-plugins-pulse description-line-too-long gstreamer-plugins-pulse is a GStreamer 0.10 plugin for the PulseAudio sound server. I don't think that it's necessary to have the name of the package in the description, I'd get rid of it. * %check is not present; There is no test code in the districution. * no shared libraries are present * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets * 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 unversioned .so file * no pkconfig file * no libtool .la droppings. * Final requirements are: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libdl.so.2 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgstaudio-0.10.so.0 libgstpulse.so.0 libgstreamer-0.10.so.0 libgthread-2.0.so.0 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libpulse.so.0 libxml2.so.2 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) * The final provides are: libgstpulse.so.0 gstreamer-plugins-pulse = 0.9.4-3.fc6 The rpmlint errors are minor, you can fix them up after importing (but before issuing a build please). This package is 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