[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: opusfile New Branches: epel7 Owners: pbrobinson -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-03-02 04:12:58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mUoz9O1KUva=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review. I'll do my best with the other one but time is quite tight atm New Package GIT Request === Package Name: opus-tools Short Description: A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-17 F-18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Summary name and SCM request name don't match. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||limburg...@gmail.com Flags|fedora-cvs? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- facepalm! Apologies New Package GIT Request === Package Name: opusfile Short Description: A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-17 F-18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||brendan.jones...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|brendan.jones...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
Hi Peter,
this package is APPROVED. Nice job.
If you have time could you have a quick look at bug 870184
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[x] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
devel
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS
/review-opusfile/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
[Bug 872958] Review Request: opusfile - A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872958 --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Updated to 0.2 SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/opusfile-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
