[Bug 789059] Review Request: jaaa - JACK and ALSA Audio Analyzer

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=789059

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-16 08:09:40 EDT ---
Koji scratchbuild for F-18:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4081069

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is NOT silent but all its messages may be safely ignored:


work ~/Desktop: rpmlint jaaa-*
jaaa.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jaaa-0.6.0/COPYING
jaaa.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jaaa
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/spectwin.h
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/jaaa.cc
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/audio.cc
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/rngen.cc
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/audio.h
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/spectwin.cc
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/rngen.h
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/styles.h
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/styles.cc
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/prbsgen.h
jaaa-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/jaaa-0.6.0/messages.h
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 1 warnings.
work ~/Desktop: 

We really shouldn't touch legal information. However I advise you to inform
upstream about that.

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2
or later, as stated in the source-files).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

work ~/Desktop: sha256sum jaaa-0.6.0.tar.bz2*
2f04f403a60d202b1341a9e1aad895d4e1c2bede6b3ca1a5aee1b4f63e31661b 
jaaa-0.6.0.tar.bz2
2f04f403a60d202b1341a9e1aad895d4e1c2bede6b3ca1a5aee1b4f63e31661b 
jaaa-0.6.0.tar.bz2.1
work ~/Desktop:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]