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: jamin - JACK Audio Mastering interface https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225114 green@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From green@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-30 10:47 EST ------- Here's my review. Note the single line with an X. I would approve this package once the Source0 line is tweaked, however I believe that we need to find a sponsor for you since, from what I can tell, this appears to be your first contribution. I've added a bugzilla dependency on FE-NEEDSPONSOR for now. Also, my personal preference is to boost the release number on every update during the review, but I don't think that's a requirement. * package meets and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. (This is a total nit-pick, but my personal preference is to align spec file field values like so... http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/zynaddsubfx.spec ) * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * License text included in package. X source files match upstream (extracted from upstream cvs so no md5sum available.) $ md5sum jamin-0.95.0.tar.gz /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/jamin-0.95.0.tar.gz 032f2a4a578a8938f76282112d56c8d6 jamin-0.95.0.tar.gz 032f2a4a578a8938f76282112d56c8d6 /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/jamin-0.95.0.tar.gz However, the source URL didn't work for me. But this one does... http://umn.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/jamin/jamin-0.95.0.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires and requires look sane: jamin-0.95.0-4.fc6.i386.rpm jamincont_1912.so jamin = 0.95.0-4 ==== hicolor-icon-theme ladspa-swh-plugins >= 0.4.7 libatk-1.0.so.0 libcairo.so.2 libfftw3f.so.3 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 libjack.so.0 liblo >= 0.15 liblo.so.0 libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpthread.so.0 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.1) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2) libxml2.so.2 * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required (it's a ladspa plugin). * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present * scriptlets OK * code, not content. * docs look fine (there's no JAMin manual, right?) * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * .desktop file required, and it looks ifne. * not a web app. -- 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