Bug 492974
Summary: | Review Request: calf - Audio plugins pack | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mmaslano:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 0.0.18.3-1.fc10 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-04-27 21:34:48 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
Orcan Ogetbil
2009-03-31 00:26:37 UTC
rpm -ivh /home/marca/calf-0.0.18.3-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm \error: Failed dependencies: liblash.so.1()(64bit) is needed by calf-0.0.18.3-1.fc11.x86_64 Shouldn't be lash in requirements for calf package? Also I can't check md5sum because on the upstream page is for download version 0.0.17. Could you send me a link for download 0.0.18? Thanks. (In reply to comment #1) > rpm -ivh /home/marca/calf-0.0.18.3-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm > \error: Failed dependencies: > liblash.so.1()(64bit) is needed by calf-0.0.18.3-1.fc11.x86_64 > Shouldn't be lash in requirements for calf package? > In the majority of cases, we don't need to express the library dependencies explicitly. See the first paragraph of: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires > Also I can't check md5sum because on the upstream page is for download version > 0.0.17. Could you send me a link for download 0.0.18? Thanks. You can find it here: https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=211458 The download URL is also listed in the Source0 field in the SPEC file. You can also use spectool to see the source links: spectool -S calf.spec OK Rpmlint must be run on every package. OK The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. OK The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file. OK The spec file must be written in American English. OK The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. ef4a48629df9104da6f6081c33d3cfa0 OK The package MUST successfully compile. OK Correct BuildRequires. OK Proper use of %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK Shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK Relocatable package must state this fact in the request for review. OK A package must own all directories that it creates. OK A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK Permissions on files must be set properly. OK Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK Each package must consistently use macros. OK The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK Header files must be in a -devel package. OK Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK Library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) and files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in -devel. OK In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package. OK Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. OK Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It was some problem with wget, ACCEPTED Thank you Marcela, please let me know if/when you have a package that needs a review. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: calf Short Description: Audio plugins pack Owners: oget Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: cvs done. calf-0.0.18.3-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/calf-0.0.18.3-1.fc10 calf-0.0.18.3-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update calf'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-3623 calf-0.0.18.3-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |