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: libflashsupport - Optional Library Interfaces for Adobe Flash Player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=303841 michel.sylvan@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From michel.sylvan@xxxxxxxxx 2007-09-24 16:11 EST ------- MUST Not sure about these two: • package name: -pulse removed? • library -> ldconfig: confirmation: not needed? I tried calling ldconfig manually and get the following: /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/lib/libflashsupport.so is not a symbolic link but pulseaudio-lib's libflashsupport does this too. Replacing the libflashsupport.so file with the one from the RPM works, so this is probably OK OK: • rpmlint: src clean, binary missing doc (upstream), contains .so (ok -- does not contain .so.*) • spec file name: matches package name • package guideline-compliant: OK • license complies with guidelines: • license field accurate: OK • spec in US English: OK • spec legible: OK • source matches upstream: OK (SVN) • builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: OK • build dependencies complete • own all directories: OK • no dupes in %files: OK • permission: OK • %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT: OK • Package contains code: OK • clean buildroot before install: OK • filenames UTF-8: OK SHOULD • if license text missing, ask upstream to include it • package build in mock on all architectures: OK • package functioned as described: OK • require package not files: OK -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review