[Bug 788718] Review Request: clalsadrv - An ALSA driver C++ library

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788718

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2012-02-16 05:44:13 EST ---
One issue I found so far - you should use "ln -s" instead of simple "ln" which
creates hardlinks instead of softlinks. See the latest line in the %install
section.

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+/- rpmlint is not silent. However I think in this case his messages can be
omitted safely:

work ~/Desktop: rpmlint clalsadrv-*
clalsadrv.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
clalsadrv.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/clalsadrv-2.0.0/COPYING
clalsadrv-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/clalsadrv-2.0.0/libs/clalsadrv.h
clalsadrv-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/clalsadrv-2.0.0/libs/clalsadrv.cc
clalsadrv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
clalsadrv-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/clalsadrv.h
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings.
work ~/Desktop: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2 or later as it stated in the source files).

- The License field in the package spec file must matche the actual license.
Correct field value is GPLv2+ (see licensing headers in the source files)/

+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum clalsadrv-2.0.0.tar.bz2*
7886b60ea79ad16f2353bb5165404ffac8287ec56704f2d07cc5804447674a2f 
clalsadrv-2.0.0.tar.bz2
7886b60ea79ad16f2353bb5165404ffac8287ec56704f2d07cc5804447674a2f 
clalsadrv-2.0.0.tar.bz2.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

So, please, adjust "License" field and fix linking issue in the %install
section before uploading. This package is


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.