Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 177270
Summary: | Review Request: libresample - A real-time library for audio sampling rate conversion | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jeffrey C. Ollie <jeff> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-03-16 15:18:43 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Jeffrey C. Ollie
2006-01-08 17:13:32 UTC
(This goes along with Packaging Guidelines) Your %description is a copy-and-paste of Summary, very brief... Anything else you can say in Description? rpmlint: OK naming guidelines: OK NOTE: FE caveats use "Release: 1%{?dist}" instead of just "Release: 1" name matches base package: OK specfile matches base package: OK Note: your .spec file in the SRPM is named correctly, but the one you linked here "libresample-0.1.3-1.spec" is not packaging guidelines: OK LGPL License: OK LICENCE.txt file matches (and included in %doc): OK Might consider renaming to "COPYING" and dropping the ".txt" off of "README.txt" legible: OK md5: OK 99bc5ea15ef76b83e5655a10968f674b SOURCES/libresample-0.1.3.tgz 99bc5ea15ef76b83e5655a10968f674b libresample-0.1.3.tgz successful build: i386=OK ppc=OK x64=UNKNOWN ( Nothing to try it on :-/ ) BuildRequires: NONE ldconfig: OK ownership/permissions: OK no duplicate %files: OK %clean: OK consistent macros: OK libraries in -devel package: OK NOTE: -devel does NOT require the base package, because there is no base package :) No blocking issues, APPROVED Builds on devel x86_64 but why no base package? Is it because there doesn't seem to be a way to generate shared libraies? This is confusing because convention is devel packages when compiling against things, not using them. (In reply to comment #2) > This is confusing because convention is > devel packages when compiling against things, not using them. But how do you "use" this package besides compiling things against it? A common convention is that there's only the -devel subpackage if there's only headers and a static lib to ship. libassuan is one example, libmatroska and libebml were before they got shared libs, and I'm sure there are others examples in the repo. IMO it's not confusing at all, but the right thing to do. What's the status of this package ? It seems to have been approved, but is still blocking FE-NEW. It's not been imported, nor built... It's been imported and built... I suppose that I should have closed it out... Right. I also put the proper blocker to FE-ACCEPT. |