Bug 217256
Summary: | Review Request: alsa-tools - Specialist tools for ALSA | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tim Jackson <rpm> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora, kevin, triad |
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: | 2006-12-09 10:27:32 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
Tim Jackson
2006-11-26 01:14:33 UTC
Note that the subpackage alsa-tools-firmware is disabled by default; this is pending the alsa-firmware package which I am going to submit separately. Firmware is over in bug #217259 I had a look at this package. Though rpmlint is silent i found /usr/share/doc/alsa-tools-1.0.12 directory is orphaned Thanks, that was subtle: I hadn't spotted that. Fixed in an updated spec file (I haven't bothered to re-upload the whole SRPM for that one-liner). Mock build for i386 devel failed => checking for ENVY24CONTROL... configure: error: Package requirements (gtk+-2.0 alsa >= 0.9.0) were not met: No package 'gtk+-2.0' found Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you installed software in a non-standard prefix. Alternatively, you may set the environment variables ENVY24CONTROL_CFLAGS and ENVY24CONTROL_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config. See the pkg-config man page for more details. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.87484 (%build) I think you should bother now to again update release and submit new download links for this modified package. You need to add gtk2-devel as Build Requires Thanks, fixed, sorry, I forgot to run it through mock. Builds now fine in mock. Spec URL: http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/specs/alsa-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.timj.co.uk/linux/srpms/alsa-tools-1.0.12-3.src.rpm I have this special thing in my /etc/rc.local that loads instruments to the OPL3 if one is found during startup: #!/bin/sh # Load MIDI instruments to the OPL3, if there is one. # Use "aplaymidi -l", "aplaymidi -p nn:nn foo.mid" to test it. midiport=`/usr/bin/aplaymidi -l | grep OPL3 | awk '{print $1}'` if [ "x$midiport" != "x" ]; then /usr/bin/sbiload -p${midiport} --opl3 /usr/share/sounds/opl3/std.o3 /usr/share/sounds/opl3/drums.o3 echo "Loaded OPL3 Instruments" fi I wonder if one should actually put something like that into init.d and link it in from the rc.d:s. It would add a Requires:alsa-utils though. I think alsa-tools-1.0.13 is already released. How about updating package to that tarball? Anyway you can also do that while importing/updating this package in CVS. Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS. + source file's md5sum is 7342056614623273abccb1cd38a674d8 alsa-tools-1.0.12-pruned.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. + %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required. + %doc does not affect runtime. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists + firmware subpackage though written in spec file its disabled. + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Desktop files installed without desktop-files-install as its really not needed. APPROVED. Many thanks for the review Parag. I left the version at 1.0.12 to match the version of alsa-libs currently included with FC6. Linus, I'm not 100% sure whether including your script is appropriate or not. In one way, I think it should be in a separate package (e.g. alsa-opl3 or something) but that seems complete overkill for a 4 line script. On the other hand it is kind of appropriate to put it here given that alsa-tools includes the sbiload binary. If we did include it I'm not sure what I would call the init script. "alsa-tools" seems wrong. "alsa-tools-opl3" is OK, but a bit of chkconfig clutter. Parag, do you have any comments? Tim, don't care about that script right now. Import and build instead, I'll make a patch in some separate bug instead if I find the time. Good work! Linus, I think its better to have another package that contains your script. you can start packaging that script and create alsa-tools-opl3 review request. I will be happy to review that also :) I imported and tried to build on devel but it failed with an odd error on ppc: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/22627-alsa-tools-1.0.12-3.fc7/ppc/build.log (for some reason it didn't appear to even try to build on other archs, which is weird). Will have to look at this in more detail. Hmm, it's not building on FC6 either, on PPC. See job 22645 Anyone have a PPC machine that they can play around on? You can ask on FE-list about your build problem. Also you will get good information at #fedora-extras OK, since nobody seems interested in ppc, I've ExcludeArch'd it for now. The corresponding bug is over in bug #219010. alsa-tools is now built successfully in devel for x86 and i386 (job #23253). FC-6 is running now. Thanks for the input everyone. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: alsa-tools Please remove the tag "alsa-tools-1_0_16-2_fc9" on the *devel* branch This was a bad tag created due to the F9/F10-devel rollover (this is waaay too easy to do) we don't remove cvs tags... please just bump your release and retag... |