[Bug 209144] Review Request: alsa-oss - Userspace OSS emulation

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Oct 5 20:17:45 UTC 2006


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: alsa-oss - Userspace OSS emulation


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209144





------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org  2006-10-05 16:17 EST -------
No offense, Denis, but are you sure you're looking at the right alsa-oss.spec? 
The one at the URL above (and from the SRPM) definitely has Version: 1.0.12. 
Also notably missing from my spec are the prever macro, rc3 release tag, -n
option on %prep, Requires: /sbin/ldconfig, and CFLAGS= on the configure line. 
It should have the following as the last changelog entry:

* Tue Oct 03 2006 Patrick "Jima" Laughton <jima at beer.tclug.org> 1.0.12-1
- Hijacked from stalled review (BZ#187706)
- Bumped to 1.0.12 for devel branch
- Removed Req for /sbin/ldconfig (unnecessary when using -p in scriptlets)
- Added dist tag!
- Made macros slightly more consistent
- Deleted .la files in %%install

I will certainly agree with you on the non-versioned patch and commented-out
autoreconf; both of these were from the previous submission of alsa-oss, and I
didn't bother correcting them.  I'm doing so now.

Adding --disable-static to configure; I apologize that I have little experience
with libraries, much less static ones.  I'm removing the .a files, but I already
removed the .la files (again...old spec?).

I'm preserving my original spec as:
http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/alsa-oss/alsa-oss-1.0.12-1.spec

and uploading new spec/SRPM at:
http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/alsa-oss/alsa-oss.spec
http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/alsa-oss/alsa-oss-1.0.12-2.fc6.src.rpm

Thanks!

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the package-review mailing list