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 - Review Request: alsamixergui : GUI mixer for ALSA sound devices
Summary: Review Request: alsamixergui : GUI mixer for ALSA sound devices
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Chris Chabot
QA Contact: David Lawrence
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-01-16 18:54 UTC by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-01-17 05:03:11 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-01-16 18:54:21 UTC 
Spec Name or Url: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/alsamixergui.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/alsamixergui-0.9.0-0.1.rc1.src.rpm
Description: 
alsamixergui is a FLTK based frontend for alsamixer. It is written
directly on top of the alsamixer source, leaving the original source
intact, only adding a couple of ifdefs, and some calls to the gui
part, so it provides exactly the same functionality, but with a
graphical userinterface.
Comment 1 Chris Chabot 2006-01-16 19:23:29 UTC 
I'll pick it up, doing build & mock as we speak, changing blocker to FE-REVIEW
Comment 2 Chris Chabot 2006-01-16 19:43:20 UTC 
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.
Comment 3 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-01-16 21:02:41 UTC 
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
Comment 4 Chris Chabot 2006-01-16 21:54:13 UTC 
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.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.