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: alsa-plugins - backend plugins for alsa sound system https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222248 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-06 19:59 EST ------- Initial comments: - I second Lennarts comment about maemo - is it useful to package that plugin without any other part of maemo in fedora ? - OSSO DSP SW <--> ALSA DSP plugin ======================== Don't put ascii formatting into the %description, please. - BuildRequires are per source package, there is no reason to put them into the subpackage sections (of course, it doesn't hurt either) - Requires: alsa-lib is unnecessary, since library dependencies pull it in anyway - The license tag needs some work; GPL is no longer a valid value for that field, it should probably be GPLv2+. But some of the plugins appear to be LGPLv2+, so maybe it would be better to put license tags in the subpackages according to their actual licenses. In fact, all but the samplerate plugin appear to be LGPL, not GPL. - What is the touching in %prep about ? -- 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