Bug 226532

Summary: Merge Review: vorbis-tools
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Michel Lind <michel>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: behdad, hdegoede, michel
Target Milestone: ---Flags: michel: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-11-16 16:43:17 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:

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 21:16:07 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: vorbis-tools

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/vorbis-tools/
Initial Owner: besfahbo

Comment 1 Hans de Goede 2007-11-14 15:15:00 UTC
To all interested reviewers, I've become a vorbis-tools co-maitainer recently and
I would like to push gnome-games through its merge review. I've taken an initial
look and the specfile looks ok. Please review and tell me what needs fixing.


Comment 2 Michel Lind 2007-11-14 15:29:54 UTC
Will be able to do the review in a couple of hours. Hans, do you want to
officially assign yourself the bug?

Comment 3 Hans de Goede 2007-11-14 15:41:21 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Will be able to do the review in a couple of hours. Hans, do you want to
> officially assign yourself the bug?

Normal reviews are always assigned to the reviewer, not the one requesting the
review, is this different for merge reviews?


Comment 4 Michel Lind 2007-11-14 22:39:52 UTC
Ah, I mean the reporter, but I just realized it cannot be changed.

Comment 5 Michel Lind 2007-11-14 22:51:18 UTC
- License field needs updating (should be GPLv2)
- Provides and Obsoletes should probably be versioned

Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR
Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR

- This is probably cosmetic, but rpmlint suggests that the summary should not
end with a period.

Comment 6 Hans de Goede 2007-11-15 08:34:41 UTC
Thanks for the comments sofar, I'm waiting with doing a new revision until
you've done a complete review, so that hopefully I can get everything fixed in
one iteration.



Comment 7 Michel Lind 2007-11-15 18:18:12 UTC
Here's the full review; didn't find anything else to fix.

MUST
failed:
• license field accurate

passed:
• rpmlint: OK
• package name: OK
• spec file name: OK
• package guideline-compliant: OK
• license complies with guidelines: OK
• license file not deleted: OK
• spec in US English: OK
• spec legible: OK
• source matches upstream: OK
• builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: OK
• build dependencies complete: OK
• locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale: OK
• library -> ldconfig: NA
• relocatable: give reason: NA
• own all directories: OK
• no dupes in %files: OK
• permission: OK
• %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT: OK
• macros used consistently: OK
• Package contains code: OK
• large docs => -doc: NA
• doc not runtime dependent: NA
• headers in -devel: NA
• static in -static: NA
• if contains *.pc, req pkgconfig: NA
• if libfiles are suffixed, the non-suffixed goes to devel: NA
• devel requires versioned base package: NA
• desktop file uses desktop-file-install: NA
• clean buildroot before install: OK
• filenames UTF-8: OK

SHOULD
failed:
• other subpackages should require versioned base
  Obsoletes/Provides should be versioned as well
• summary ending with period


passed:
• if license text missing, ask upstream to include it: NA
• desc and summary contain translations if available
• package build in mock on all architectures: OK
• package functioned as described: OK
• scriplets are sane: OK
• if main pkg is development-wise, pkgconfig can go in main package: NA
• require package not files: OK

Comment 8 Hans de Goede 2007-11-15 19:03:02 UTC
Ok,

1:1.1.1.svn20070412-5 has just been committed to CVS and is now building, this
fixes:
• license field accurate
• other subpackages should require versioned base
  Obsoletes/Provides should be versioned as well
• summary ending with period