[Bug 461003] Review Request: ssbd - Voice keyer for use in hamradio

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=461003


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>  2008-11-20 15:17:01 EDT ---
I've no way to test this, but its been sitting for ten weeks and it builds OK
so why not?

Is it possible to clean up the grammar in the %description?  The last sentence
needs a period, I'm sure, but honestly I don't have enough context to be able
to parse it and suggest improvements.

I'm not sure how you arrive at "GPLv2" for the license tag; I can't find any
statement of the GPL version in use, which would indicate "GPL+".  Have I
missed something?

The package is missing the proper scriptlet dependencies for service and
chkconfig:

Requires(post): chkconfig
Requires(preun): chkconfig, initscripts
Requires(postun): initscripts

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   403fc4ce7da01c83bc2b5da8f8d11643c50dcd04e9f80a7a4f8f2deb041b22ce  
   ssbd-0.10.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
X description could use some cleanup.
* 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.
X final provides and requires missing chkconfig and service dependencies.
   config(ssbd) = 0.10-1.fc10
   ssbd = 0.10-1.fc10
   ssbd(x86-64) = 0.10-1.fc10
  =
   /bin/bash
   /bin/sh
   config(ssbd) = 0.10-1.fc10
   libglib-1.2.so.0()(64bit)
   libsndfile.so.1()(64bit)
   libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)(64bit)

* 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 generically named files
X scriptlets OK (service management) but dependencies are missing.
* 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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]