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 eric.moret@xxxxxxxx 2007-08-07 14:24 EST ------- (In reply to comment #38) > Initial comments: > > - I second Lennarts comment about maemo - is it useful to package that plugin > without any other part of maemo in fedora ? Removed Maemo > - OSSO DSP SW <--> ALSA DSP plugin > ======================== > Don't put ascii formatting into the %description, please. Fixed > - BuildRequires are per source package, there is no reason to put them > into the subpackage sections (of course, it doesn't hurt either) I did it this way so build dependencies would not be forgotten when a package would be removed, like above for the maemo plugin. > - Requires: alsa-lib > is unnecessary, since library dependencies pull it in anyway Fixed > - 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. Tried to address it but the global License field seems to be mandatory. > - What is the touching in %prep about ? Not sure where this came from. I removed it. -- 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