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 177944
| Summary: | Review Request: alsamixergui : GUI mixer for ALSA sound devices | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Chris Chabot <chabotc> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | chabotc, 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: | 2006-01-17 05:03:11 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
Tom "spot" Callaway
2006-01-16 18:54:21 UTC
I'll pick it up, doing build & mock as we speak, changing blocker to FE-REVIEW Compiled cleanly & functions on FC5-devel
One functional comment: There is no quit button (other then window titlebar [X]
one), not really an HIG compliant application, but functional otherwise.
Missing for formal checklist (from PackageReviewGuidelines):
"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. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of
PackagingGuidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not
need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your
explanation."
Review list MUST items:
- Builds cleanly on FC5 devel.
- rpmlint has no output / complaints
- Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum)
- Package name meets guidelines
- spec file name is in %{name}.spec format
- Licence (BSD-ish?) is fedora extra's compatible & is included in spec
- Spec file is in (american) english
- Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines
- All build dependencies are listed
- No need for ldconfig
- All files have proper permissions
- Package is not relocatable
- No duplicate files in %files section
- No missing files in %files section
- Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines
- No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation
- No -devel package needed
- No directory-ownerships needed
Review list SHOULD items:
- Includes upstream licence file (COPYING)
- No insane scriplets
- No unnescesarry requires
rpmlint has no complaints at all (no output)
Please add a desktop file, or explanation why not in the spec file, and i'll do
the reviewlist again.
The app certainly isn't HIG compliant, but it dates back to 2002. There are certainly tons of other mixers which are HIG complaint, so I'm content to leave this application as is. Added a desktop file in -2: SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/alsamixergui-0.9.0-0.2.rc1.src.rpm SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/alsamixergui.spec Review list MUST items:
- Builds cleanly on FC5 devel.
- rpmlint has no output / complaints
- Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum)
- Package name meets guidelines
- spec file name is in %{name}.spec format
- Licence (BSD-ish?) is fedora extra's compatible & is included in spec
- Spec file is in (american) english
- Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines
- Missing BR: desktop-file-utils, mock failed because of it.
With adding that BR, it mock builds properly.
- No need for ldconfig
- All files have proper permissions
- Package is not relocatable
- No duplicate files in %files section
- No missing files in %files section
- Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines
- No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation
- No -devel package needed
- No directory-ownerships needed
Review list SHOULD items:
- Includes upstream licence file (COPYING)
- No insane scriplets
- No unnescesarry requires
FE-ACCEPT, but under the assumption you will add that BR for desktop-file-utils
before commiting to cvs!
Please assign the bug to me on closing it per procedure.
|