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: wavplay - Uncompressed wav file player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=316881 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-07 13:12 EST ------- The only issue I can see is that your %description should be a complete sentence. Maybe "wavplay is an uncompressed wav file player." But really, that's minor. My only real question is how this works with these fancy audio systems we have those days, but I don't at the moment have any way to test them so I'll leave that up to you. Review: * source files match upstream: 8e77d48b301fe3224006afff79a249142eeafa756e95dfbc08b1c0c873d0821f wavplay-1.4.tar.gz The patch matches upstream too: 8d817809353a970343a739238879eab0c991ca1ce3ae3f0175f1964185c7fc3f wavplay-1.4.patch * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. ? description should at least be a complete sentence. * dist tag is present. * 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 (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * %check is not present; no upstream test suite. Seems to work well enough in manual testing. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directory 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. APPROVED -- 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