[Bug 491579] Review Request: jjack - JACK audio driver for the Java Sound API
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Apr 26 11:38:13 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491579
Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> 2009-04-26 07:38:12 EDT ---
Fedora review jjack-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm 2009-04-26
rpmlint:
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
* Package is named according to guidelines
* Specfile is named after the package
* The package follows the guidelines for a java package using JNI
* License is Fedora approved: LGPLv2+
* The License tags in the sources only says LGPL without version.
According to the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing page LGPL
without version is equivalent to LGPLv2+. ("Note that this is
LGPLv2+, not LGPL+, because version 2 was the first version of
LGPL.") The version number in the LICENSE file itself is not
relevant for (L)GPL.
* The LICENSE file is packaged as %doc
* Specfile is written in legible English
* Sources matches upstream to the extent possible (differences are documented):
$ diff -ur SRPM/jjack-0.3 jjack-0.3
Only in jjack-0.3/doc/www: mp3
Only in SRPM/jjack-0.3/doc/www: ogg
* Package compiles in mock (Fedora 10)
* BuildRequires are sane
* Package owns directories it creates
* No duplicate files
* Permissions are sane and %files has %defattr
* %clean clears buildroot
* Macros are used consistently
* Documentation is in javadoc subpackage
* %doc is not runtime essential
* Package does not own other's directories
* %install clears buildroot
* Installed files are valid UTF-8
One small suggestion: The wrapper script passes its arguments on as
$1 $2 $3 $4 $5
It is probably better to instead do
"$@"
(including the quotes). This will work better in cases where there are
empty arguments ("") or quoted arguments containing spaces, subtleties
that now get lost.
Package approved.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list