[Bug 958132] Review Request: soxr - The SoX Resampler library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Apr 30 19:25:47 UTC 2013
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958132
T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth at gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Status: APPROVED
===== Things to Consider =====
[ ]: rpmlint warns of an unused direct shlib dependency.
This is not a blocker issue, but it may be possible to fix this. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
===== 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.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: 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.
[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:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/958132-soxr/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.
[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)
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: soxr-devel-0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
soxr-0.1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
soxr-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
soxr-0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
soxr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample,
re-sample, res ample
soxr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample,
re-sample, res ample
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
OK
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint soxr-debuginfo soxr soxr-devel
soxr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample,
re-sample, res ample
soxr.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsoxr-lsr.so.0.1.9
/lib64/libm.so.6
soxr.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsoxr-lsr.so.0.1.9
/lib64/libgomp.so.1
soxr.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsoxr-lsr.so.0.1.9
/lib64/libpthread.so.0
soxr.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsoxr.so.0.1.0
/lib64/libpthread.so.0
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
OK, unused-direct-shlib-dependency is not a blocker
Requires
--------
soxr-devel-0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
libsoxr-lsr.so.0()(64bit)
libsoxr.so.0()(64bit)
soxr(x86-64) = 0.1.1-1.fc20
soxr-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
soxr-0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit)
libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit)
libgomp.so.1(OMP_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libsoxr.so.0()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
OK
Provides
--------
soxr-devel-0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm:
pkgconfig(soxr) = 0.1.1
pkgconfig(soxr-lsr) = 0.1.1
soxr-devel = 0.1.1-1.fc20
soxr-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.1-1.fc20
soxr-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm:
soxr-debuginfo = 0.1.1-1.fc20
soxr-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.1.1-1.fc20
soxr-0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm:
libsoxr-lsr.so.0()(64bit)
libsoxr.so.0()(64bit)
soxr = 0.1.1-1.fc20
soxr(x86-64) = 0.1.1-1.fc20
OK
MD5-sum check
-------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/soxr/soxr-0.1.1-Source.tar.xz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
dcc16868d1a157079316f84233afcc2b52dd0bd541dd8439dc25bceb306faac2
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
dcc16868d1a157079316f84233afcc2b52dd0bd541dd8439dc25bceb306faac2
OK
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (f4bc12d) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-vanilla-x86_64
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b958132
--
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=1xsfFnhZ2R&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list