[Bug 222648] Review Request: audacious-plugin-fc - Future Composer plugin for Audacious

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: audacious-plugin-fc - Future Composer plugin for Audacious


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222648





------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2007-06-28 22:11 EST -------
You shouldn't need a build dependency on pkgconfig; audacious-devel should have
its own dependency (and indeed it does).  But of course it doesn't hurt anything.

It seems there's directory ownership problem; /usr/lib/audacious/Input is owned
by audacious-plugins, but they're not required by this package.  This seems like
the kind of thing the base audacious package should own.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   deafc2c95dc7a1a67a83b53b7871686fa280c8ed18547df51988b648dbe5519b  
   audacious-plugin-fc-0.2.tar.bz2
* 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.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   libfc.so()(64bit)
   audacious-plugin-fc = 0.2-1
  =
   audacious >= 1.3
   libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libaudacious.so.5()(64bit)
   libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libmcs.so.1()(64bit)
   libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libpng12.so.0()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
* %check is not present; no upstream test suite.  I've no ability to actually 
   test this as I have no speakers on this machine.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
X Ownership issues with /usr/lib/audacious/Input.
* 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.

-- 
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

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