[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1508002 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508002 [Bug 1508002] Review Request: uTox - The lightweight Tox client -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||manisan...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|manisan...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani --- You should also export LDFLAGS=%{__global_ldflags} -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani --- As a general remark, I'm not sure whether the changelog format requires an empty line between each entry, but I'd personally recommend it because it greatly increases readability. I'll leave up to you though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/8392830/libfilteraudio.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/tox/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00656736-libfilteraudio/libfilteraudio-0.0.1-2.fc28.src.rpm - Added export LDFLAGS=%{__global_ldflags} - Added space to %changelog -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani --- You should ask upstream to include a separate license file, but this is non-blocking. Package approved. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === = MUST items = C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 88 files have unknown license. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local = SHOULD items = Generic: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try
[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libfilteraudio -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- libfilteraudio-0.0.1-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9ee64c97fd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- libfilteraudio-0.0.1-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9ee64c97fd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1507985] Review Request: libfilteraudio - Lightweight audio filtering library made from webrtc code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507985 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2017-12-19 14:44:44 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- libfilteraudio-0.0.1-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org