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: xawtv - TV applications for video4linux compliant devices https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230762 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-20 21:06 EST ------- rpmlint has only one complaint: W: xawtv mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 65, tab: line 84) No big deal; fix it if you like. The Source0: URL doesn't seem to be valid. Trying to fetch it I just end up getting an index.html page. This seems to work better for me: http://dl.bytesex.org/releases/xawtv/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz You aren't using the dist tag. It's not a requirement, but I always ask packagers if they understand the issues that can occur if they don't. The compiler seems to be called only with -Wno-pointer-sign instead of the usual compliment of flags. This breaks the debuginfo packages, among other things. I guess this is a GUI application (or at least some of the executables are) and is thus supposed have appropriate desktop files so that things show up in the desktop menu properly. * source files match upstream: 1204212c59d10df4e29a9a0ddce96cab78342859ec44bf6fd1c5f260b5c7216f xawtv-3.95.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. X compiler flags are incorrect. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly X debuginfo package is incomplete. * rpmlint has only acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: bilinear.so()(64bit) config(xawtv) = 3.95-0 conv-mjpeg.so()(64bit) cubic.so()(64bit) drv0-v4l2-old.so()(64bit) drv0-v4l2.so()(64bit) drv1-v4l.so()(64bit) flt-disor.so()(64bit) flt-gamma.so()(64bit) flt-invert.so()(64bit) flt-smooth.so()(64bit) linear-blend.so()(64bit) linedoubler.so()(64bit) read-avi.so()(64bit) read-dv.so()(64bit) snd-oss.so()(64bit) write-avi.so()(64bit) write-dv.so()(64bit) xawtv = 3.95-0 = /bin/bash config(xawtv) = 3.95-0 libFS.so.6()(64bit) libGL.so.1()(64bit) libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXaw.so.7()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXft.so.2()(64bit) libXinerama.so.1()(64bit) libXmu.so.6()(64bit) libXpm.so.4()(64bit) libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libXt.so.6()(64bit) libXv.so.1()(64bit) libXxf86dga.so.1()(64bit) libaa.so.1()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libdv.so.4()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libncursesw.so.5()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzvbi.so.0()(64bit) usermode * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I haven't the hardware to be able to do any testing, so I'm only reviewing the packaging. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * 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 static libraries. * no libtool .la files. X GUI app, but no desktop files. -- 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