[Bug 203217] Review Request: csound - music synthesis system

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Aug 26 09:27:57 UTC 2006


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: csound - music synthesis system


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203217





------- Additional Comments From paul at all-the-johnsons.co.uk  2006-08-26 05:27 EST -------
Okay, from the latest...

fails to build in mock - you need to add libjpeg-devel to the BRs

rpmlint is mostly clean (I'm ignoring packages without docs). The exceptions are

csound-java : W: no-soname %{_libdir}/lib_jcsound.so
              W: symlink-should-be-relative %{_datadir}/java/csnd.jar
%{_libdir}/%{name}/java.csnd.jar
csound-osc: E: explicit-lib-dependency liblo
csound-manual: E: zero-length
%{_docdir}/%{name}-manual-%{version}/examples/ifthen.csd

Other things...

The Dist: number doesn't get increased with each new release. The problem with
that is that when I'm tracking, it's a bitch to find a difference when you have
to check datestamps instead of something nice like the Dist number. Can you
please increment with each alteration?

When you add a new tarball, can you please respin the src.rpm - it makes life a
damned sight easier for review and testing purposes. I don't have a problem with
minor things like spec files and patches, but whopping huge addins - that's
another thing.

Please change the printf redefinition. Not interested in upstream, it's wrong
and is also a possible security problem (printf is well defined in terms of what
it does and it's problems, the new printf is a different kettle of fish). If it
helps, rename the function cs_printf. It will probably take a minute to do a
glob|regex search and replace on the source.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list