[Bug 613993] Review Request: mingw32-celt051 - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Sep 12 17:44:30 UTC 2010
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=613993
Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl> 2010-09-12 13:44:28 EDT ---
$ rpmlint mingw32-celt051.spec
mingw32-celt051.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
mingw32-celt051.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
mingw32-celt051.spec: W: no-%clean-section
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3-3.fc14.src.rpm
mingw32-celt051.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> cosec, codex,
code
mingw32-celt051.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> cosec,
codex, code
mingw32-celt051.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime ->
mealtime, real time, real-time
mingw32-celt051.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes,
coders, code's
mingw32-celt051.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
mingw32-celt051.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
mingw32-celt051.src: W: no-%clean-section
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3-3.fc14.noarch.rpm
mingw32-celt051.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> cosec, codex,
code
mingw32-celt051.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> cosec,
codex, code
mingw32-celt051.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime ->
mealtime, real time, real-time
mingw32-celt051.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs ->
codes, coders, code's
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
All these rpmlint warnings can be ignored
$ rpmquery --requires mingw32-celt051
pkgconfig
mingw32-libogg
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32-filesystem >= 57
mingw32-runtime
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(libcelt051-0.dll)
mingw32(libogg-0.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32(user32.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpmquery --provides mingw32-celt051
mingw32(libcelt051-0.dll)
mingw32-celt051 = 0.5.1.3-3.fc14
$ rpmquery --fileprovide mingw32-celt051
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/celtdec051.exe
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/celtenc051.exe
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/libcelt051-0.dll
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/celt051
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/celt051/celt.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/celt051/celt_header.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/celt051/celt_types.h
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libcelt051.dll.a
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libcelt051.la
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/celt051.pc
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3/README
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3/TODO
$ curl http://downloads.us.xiph.org/releases/celt/celt-0.5.1.3.tar.gz | md5sum
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 430k 100 430k 0 0 176k 0 0:00:02 0:00:02 --:--:-- 308k
67e7b5e45db57a6f1f0a6962f5ecb190 -
$ md5sum celt-0.5.1.3.tar.gz
67e7b5e45db57a6f1f0a6962f5ecb190 celt-0.5.1.3.tar.gz
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2463137
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines
[+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= xx is in the .spec file
[+] Requires are OK
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] No man pages or info files
[+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw32 specific
ones
[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[/] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[*] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[*] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[*] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[*] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[/] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[/] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[/] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[*] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[/] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
=====================================================
The package mingw32-celt051 is APPROVED by epienbro
=====================================================
PS. Could you please review mingw32-gdk-pixbuf in return? It's required to
build the latest ming32-gtk2.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633058
--
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