Bug 461425
Summary: | Review Request: daap-sharp - DAAP client library for Mono | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ian Burrell <ianburrell> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michel Lind <michel> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, lemenkov, michel, notting |
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: | 2009-03-24 19:13:10 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: | 201449 |
Description
Ian Burrell
2008-09-07 20:32:12 UTC
Seems that it's already in Fedora http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/daap-sharp/ (In reply to comment #1) > Seems that it's already in Fedora > > http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/daap-sharp/ It was in Fedora. It got orphaned and removed around Fedora 7. It needs a re-review to be restored. Straightforward review, since the package has already been approved, so these are just clean-up requests. rpmlint: daap-sharp.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 10) Easiest fix is to open the file in Emacs, select all, then M-x untabify Package builds OK, but on my system that has monodoc installed, it generates some files that are currently unpackaged: RPM build errors: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib64/monodoc/sources/daap-sharp-docs.source /usr/lib64/monodoc/sources/daap-sharp-docs.tree /usr/lib64/monodoc/sources/daap-sharp-docs.zip These won't be generated by Koji since monodoc is not installed there, but would you consider adding a BR and packaging them, perhaps in a -doc subpackage? Fails on ppc64, not sure if it's transient or not, but you might want to take a look. If it's replicable you might want to ExcludeArch ppc64 and file a tracking bug (or reuse the Mono ppc64 tracking bug) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=836708 ping? Closing due to lack of response |