[Bug 475135] Review Request: portmidi - Real-time Midi I/O Library

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=475135


Lucian Langa <cooly at gnome.eu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #2 from Lucian Langa <cooly at gnome.eu.org>  2009-01-27 13:17:46 EDT ---
Review:
OK  specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK  summary is OK.
OK  description is OK.
OK  dist tag is present.
OK  build root is OK.
OK  license field matches the actual license.
OK  license is open source-compatible.
OK  license text included in package.
OK  BuildRequires are proper.
OK  compiler flags are appropriate.
OK  %clean is present.
OK  package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
OK  package installs properly.
OK  debuginfo package looks complete.
OK  rpmlint is silent.
OK  final provides and requires are sane:
portmidi-131-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
        libportmidi.so.0()(64bit)
        libporttime.so.0()(64bit)
        portmidi = 131-1.fc11
        portmidi(x86-64) = 131-1.fc11
  =
        /sbin/ldconfig
        libasound.so.2()(64bit)
        libc.so.6()(64bit)
        libm.so.6()(64bit)
        libportmidi.so.0()(64bit)
        libporttime.so.0()(64bit)
        libpthread.so.0()(64bit)

portmidi-devel-131-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
        portmidi-devel = 131-1.fc11
        portmidi-devel(x86-64) = 131-1.fc11
  =
        libportmidi.so.0()(64bit)
        libporttime.so.0()(64bit)
        portmidi = 131-1.fc11

OK  %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
OK  shared libraries installed; ldconfig called properly
OK  owns the directories it creates.
OK  doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK  no duplicates in %files.
OK  file permissions are appropriate.
OK  code, not content.
OK  documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
OK  %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK  headers are in a separate -devel package.
OK  no pkgconfig files.
OK  no static libraries.
OK  no libtool .la files.

Suggestions:

- There is a doxygen style documentation provided in this package, you should
include it in the -devel and don't forget to pickup doxygen as a BR.
- Please consider preserving timestamps of installed files

APPROVED.

-- 
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.