[Bug 303841] Review Request: libflashsupport - Optional Library Interfaces for Adobe Flash Player
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Sep 24 20:11:47 UTC 2007
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: libflashsupport - Optional Library Interfaces for Adobe Flash Player
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=303841
michel.sylvan at gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From michel.sylvan at gmail.com 2007-09-24 16:11 EST -------
MUST
Not sure about these two:
• package name: -pulse removed?
• library -> ldconfig: confirmation: not needed?
I tried calling ldconfig manually and get the following:
/sbin/ldconfig: /usr/lib/libflashsupport.so is not a symbolic link
but pulseaudio-lib's libflashsupport does this too. Replacing the
libflashsupport.so file with the one from the RPM works, so this is probably OK
OK:
• rpmlint: src clean, binary missing doc (upstream), contains .so (ok -- does
not contain .so.*)
• spec file name: matches package name
• package guideline-compliant: OK
• license complies with guidelines:
• license field accurate: OK
• spec in US English: OK
• spec legible: OK
• source matches upstream: OK (SVN)
• builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: OK
• build dependencies complete
• own all directories: OK
• no dupes in %files: OK
• permission: OK
• %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT: OK
• Package contains code: OK
• clean buildroot before install: OK
• filenames UTF-8: OK
SHOULD
• if license text missing, ask upstream to include it
• package build in mock on all architectures: OK
• package functioned as described: OK
• require package not files: OK
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
More information about the package-review
mailing list