[Bug 641572] Review Request: celt071 - Celt version 0.7.1 for mumble compatibility

Sun Apr 3 17:48:46 UTC 2011

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=641572

--- Comment #10 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy at fedoraproject.org> 2011-04-03 13:48:43 EDT ---
% rpmlint celt071.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

% rpmlint celt071-0.7.1-1.fc13.src.rpm
celt071.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> cosec, codex, code
celt071.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> cosec, codex,
code
celt071.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real
time, real-time
celt071.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes, coders,
code's
celt071.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstream -> bit stream,
bit-stream, midstream
celt071.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install
able, install-able, uninstallable
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

% rpmlint celt071-0.7.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm celt071-devel-0.7.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
celt071-debuginfo-0.7.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> cosec, codex, code
celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> cosec, codex,
code
celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime,
real time, real-time
celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes,
coders, code's
celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstream -> bit
stream, bit-stream, midstream
celt071.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US installable -> install
able, install-able, uninstallable
celt071.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary celtdec071
celt071.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary celtenc071
celt071-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings.

I'm no native english speaker, but I guess you can at least add the spaces in
"real time" and "bit stream". Any other warning can be ignored.

Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
 [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec
 [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
     supported architecture.
     Builds fine with rpmbuild on Fedora 14 x86_64.
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     source RPM: only spelling warnings, see above.
     binary RPM: see above.
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [!] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines
     License: BSD
     The files tools/getopt1.c and tools/getopt_win.h are GPLv2+. Since they
are
     used to build the binaries celtenc071 and celtdec071 which are installed
     by the package, the License rather should be: BSD and GPLv2+

 [X] License file is included in %doc.
 [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE
 [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source
     SHA1SUM of Source: 39ffceae34a570dd787bce39a0a720682cc47fb0
 [x] Package compiles successfully
 [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
     There is a missing dependency to libtool. Some scratch builds with mock
and
     koji failed because of this. See
     http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2970161 and
     http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2970169

 [-] Specfile handles locales properly
 [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
 [x] Package owns directorys it creates
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
 [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
 [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
 [!] Macros are consistently used
     You are mixing the notation for the buildroot, line 56 has
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT,
     line 64 %{buildroot}.

 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage
 [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc
 [x] Header files are in a -devel package
 [-] Static libraries are in a -static package
 [x] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present
 [x] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage
 [x] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package
 [x] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed
 [-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [!] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install
 [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package contains latest upstream version
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] non-English translations for description and summary
 [x] Package builds in mock
     Tested on: F14/x86_64
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
     tested build with koji
 [x] Program runs
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [x] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package
 [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself
     no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required

-- 
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.