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: dsmidiwifi - remote controll midi with your Nintendo DS Alias: dsmidiwifi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=240543 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-27 17:22 EST ------- Thanks. Builds fine and rpmlint finds nothing to complain about. Everything else looks good as well. * source files match upstream: 44a0e626e5284b187ba5eda8f72dc81ab2e1c59e3386ef5b5723907a97f973ee dsmidiwifi-v1.01a.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK (it's a little thin, but it's what upstream uses and I can't really think of anything better) * description is OK. * 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. * 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: dsmidiwifi = 1.01a-2.fc9 = libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I have a DS but no way to get homebrew apps to it to test this. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories 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 -doc 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 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