[Bug 225757] Merge Review: flac

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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

Summary: Merge Review: flac


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225757


dan at danny.cz changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|dan at danny.cz                |bnocera at redhat.com
                 CC|                            |dan at danny.cz
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz  2007-02-13 12:57 EST -------
The formal review is here:
OK	source files match upstream:
	    ba0bf8b4720537b08aba9b0d2d5b3fbe796ce9957a56334354a2f95694866a7c 
flac-1.1.3.tar.gz
OK	package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK	specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK	dist tag is present.
OK	build root is correct.
OK	license field matches the actual license.
OK	license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
OK	latest version is being packaged.
OK	BuildRequires are proper.
OK	compiler flags are appropriate.
OK	%clean is present.
OK	package builds in mock (i386).
OK	debuginfo package looks complete.
OK	final provides and requires looks sane:
OK	shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths and ldconfig is
run.
OK	owns the directories it creates.
OK	doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK	no duplicates in %files.
OK	file permissions are appropriate.
OK	no scriptlets present.
OK	code, not content.
OK	documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK	%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK	headers are in -devel.
OK	no pkgconfig files.
OK	not a GUI app.

MUST FIX:

BAD	rpmlint is NOT silent.

result of running "rpmlint -vi"
W: flac-devel summary-ended-with-dot Static libraries and header files from FLAC.
    you forgot the dot in the second Summary ;-)

I: flac.i386.rpm checking
E: flac obsolete-not-provided flac-libs
The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths
and not to break dependencies.

I: flac.srpm checking
W: flac unversioned-explicit-obsoletes flac-libs
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing.  This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
possible.

Some info from the Wiki -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines?highlight=%28obsolete%29#head-3cfc1ea19d28975faad9d56f70a6ae55661d3c3d

-- 
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.