[Bug 177865] Review Request: adplay

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jun 24 04:50:10 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: adplay


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177865


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-06-24 00:41 EST -------
Builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) and rpmlint is silent.  Not much to
say; it's a tiny package.

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
   18e1ac84b6f07d0388902a083f400da7  adplay-1.5.tar.bz2
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (x86_64, development).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   adplay = 1.5-1.fc6
  =
   libadplug-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libasound.so.2()(64bit)
   libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit)
   libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit)
   libaudiofile.so.0()(64bit)
   libbinio.so.1()(64bit)
   libesd.so.0()(64bit)
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

APPROVED

-- 
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