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: ezstream - Command line source client for Icecast media streaming servers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441086 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-11 01:39 EST ------- Sorry, I ended up running out of time for a bit there. Some of the source is MIT licensed, some is GPLv2+ and some is GPLv2. That does make the result plain GPLv2. The obvious question is whether this decodes MP3 in any way, and as far as I can tell it doesn't, other than parsing the metadata. It can use external programs to transcode things to and from MP3 but it doesn't include those programs. * source files match upstream: 5f279eab49b6d71441358ef046fdbd3749396cf43818e436239fdb3e004e4ecb ezstream-0.5.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * 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: ezstream = 0.5.3-1.fc9 = libogg.so.0()(64bit) libshout.so.3()(64bit) libspeex.so.1()(64bit) libtag_c.so.0()(64bit) libtheora.so.0()(64bit) libvorbis.so.0()(64bit) libvorbisfile.so.3()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I don't really have any idea how 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 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