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=455137 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-02 20:53:45 EDT --- Builds fine and rpmlint is silent. The documentation files are duplicated between the main and -devel package. Unfortunately, modem.h and simd.h are far too generic to place in /usr/include. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: e7a42c413a180b873ae76b2c252904a3e34c9807c2604f2315426443d9e28627 soundmodem-0.10.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: soundmodem-0.10-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm soundmodem = 0.10-3.fc11 soundmodem(x86-64) = 0.10-3.fc11 = /bin/sh chkconfig initscripts libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXi.so.6()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit) libaudiofile.so.0()(64bit) libgdk-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libglib-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-1.2.so.0()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libutil.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libxml.so.1()(64bit) soundmodem-devel-0.10-3.fc11.x86_64.rpm soundmodem-devel = 0.10-3.fc11 soundmodem-devel(x86-64) = 0.10-3.fc11 = soundmodem = 0.10-3.fc11 * 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. X generically named files * scriptlets present OK (service management). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel package. * 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