[Bug 866154] Review Request: rtaudio - a realtime audio I/O library (re-review orphaned package)

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866154

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> ---
Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide:

* http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4633677

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is not silent but all its messages are false positives:

Auriga ~/Desktop: rpmlint rtaudio-*
rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real
time, real-time
rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt
rtaudio.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d
rtaudio.src: W: invalid-url Source0: rtaudio-4.0.11-fe.tar.gz
rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime,
real time, real-time
rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt
rtaudio.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d
rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime ->
mealtime, real time, real-time
rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch,
mufti
rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape,
apt
rtaudio-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US de -> DE, ed, d
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
Auriga ~/Desktop: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT).
0 No licensing info provided in tarball.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
0 At the beginning of %install, the package  does not run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4
and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

I don't see any other issues so this package is


APPROVED.


ps If you have a spare time then could you please review this in return? 
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/869301

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.