[Bug 191239] Review Request: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jun 15 09:10:40 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: qjackctl - Qt based JACK control application


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191239


j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl




------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl  2006-06-15 05:02 EST -------
Hi,

While browsing the wiki I "stumbled" over the "Music and Media Production" SIG,
Since I've always thought that it would be a great idea to integrate planetccrma
and FE I must say that I'm very happy to see this is happening now. I must say
though that I myself sofar have had no need for planetccrma packages.

Well thats enough introduction I guess. The reason I'm introducing myself is
because after stumbling over the SIG I decided to read the fedora-music-list
archives. There I read that you (Fernando) need a sponsor and I can sponsor.

So I'll (quickly) redo Callum's Review (the rules say I must do so as a sponsor)
and if I agree that this package is approve-able you can create an account in
the accounts system and I'll sponsor you.

Some remarks about the above discussion:

(In reply to comment #2)
> > # distros with 2.4.x kernels should use jackstart as the default
> > %{?fc1:%define usejackstart 1}
> > %{?rh9:%define usejackstart 1}
> > this define can go since extras doesn't go that far back
> 
> I erased this but I was hoping I would not have to keep separate spec files for
> Planet CCRMA and Fedora Extras (it does not really hurt to have it there). Oh
> well, just a little bit more extra pain I guess...
> 

You can keep a single specfile if you want, as long as things don't become too
ugly / too much of a kludge. I personally believe that the above 2 lines arenot
too ugly.

(In reply to comment #14)
> And for what its worth, I queried FESCo on the make/rm macro thing. The response
> was "choose either, just be consistent".

Yes, thats what I've always understood (and used as a criteria during reviews) too.


-- 
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