Bug 316881

Summary:	Review Request: wavplay - Uncompressed wav file player
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Jason Tibbitts <j>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, notting
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	j: 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:	2007-12-15 13:07:44 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 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2007-10-03 14:08:29 UTC

Spec URL: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/SPECS/wavplay.spec
SRPM URL: 
http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/testing/7/SRPMS/wavplay-1.4-1.kwizart.fc7.src.rpm
Description: Uncompressed wav file player

This package is still needed by some applications

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2007-11-07 18:12:15 UTC

The only issue I can see is that your %description should be a complete
sentence.  Maybe "wavplay is an uncompressed wav file player."  But really,
that's minor.

My only real question is how this works with these fancy audio systems we have
those days, but I don't at the moment have any way to test them so I'll leave
that up to you.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   8e77d48b301fe3224006afff79a249142eeafa756e95dfbc08b1c0c873d0821f  
   wavplay-1.4.tar.gz
  The patch matches upstream too:
   8d817809353a970343a739238879eab0c991ca1ce3ae3f0175f1964185c7fc3f  
   wavplay-1.4.patch
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
? description should at least be a complete sentence.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* %check is not present; no upstream test suite.  Seems to work well enough in 
   manual testing.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directory it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED

Comment 2 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2007-11-09 12:49:18 UTC

Actually you raised a good question (with PA)...
Anyway I wonder if I could remove the need of wavplay from gimp-gap (which is
the package that would "still" need it...)

Comment 3 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) 2007-12-15 13:07:44 UTC

Ok i will not fix since gimp-gap may be deprecated with the tools provided by
gimp 2.4
Closing to won't fix