Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461054 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-03 20:47:24 EDT --- This is a simple package; it builds fine and rpmlint is silent. I can't test it because it exits if /dev/dsp can't be opened and this machine has no sound card. (It runs up until that point well enough.) However, this makes me wonder how well use of /dev/dsp works with the modern world of ALSA and PulseAudio. I have to assume that you have tested this on F8 or F9 and had no issues with sound output. The only real problem I see is that the compiler isn't called with the proper set of flags. This is trivially fixed by calling make thusly: make CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags} * source files match upstream: 6c9bd2e3d5c1d06c6a84e910deeff3c1e7a7f2c4c0f0376ddfb11fa4855aff9a qrq-0.1.4.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. X compiler flags are not correct. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. X debuginfo package is incomplete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: qrq = 0.1.4-2.fc10 qrq(x86-64) = 0.1.4-2.fc10 = /usr/bin/perl libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) perl(LWP::UserAgent) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I cannot test this software due to my test machine lacking a sound card. * 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. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review