Spec Name or Url: http://www.ocjtech.us/libresample-0.1.3-1.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.ocjtech.us/libresample-0.1.3-1.src.rpm Description: A real-time library for audio sampling rate conversion.
(This goes along with Packaging Guidelines) Your %description is a copy-and-paste of Summary, very brief... Anything else you can say in Description? rpmlint: OK naming guidelines: OK NOTE: FE caveats use "Release: 1%{?dist}" instead of just "Release: 1" name matches base package: OK specfile matches base package: OK Note: your .spec file in the SRPM is named correctly, but the one you linked here "libresample-0.1.3-1.spec" is not packaging guidelines: OK LGPL License: OK LICENCE.txt file matches (and included in %doc): OK Might consider renaming to "COPYING" and dropping the ".txt" off of "README.txt" legible: OK md5: OK 99bc5ea15ef76b83e5655a10968f674b SOURCES/libresample-0.1.3.tgz 99bc5ea15ef76b83e5655a10968f674b libresample-0.1.3.tgz successful build: i386=OK ppc=OK x64=UNKNOWN ( Nothing to try it on :-/ ) BuildRequires: NONE ldconfig: OK ownership/permissions: OK no duplicate %files: OK %clean: OK consistent macros: OK libraries in -devel package: OK NOTE: -devel does NOT require the base package, because there is no base package :) No blocking issues, APPROVED
Builds on devel x86_64 but why no base package? Is it because there doesn't seem to be a way to generate shared libraies? This is confusing because convention is devel packages when compiling against things, not using them.
(In reply to comment #2) > This is confusing because convention is > devel packages when compiling against things, not using them. But how do you "use" this package besides compiling things against it? A common convention is that there's only the -devel subpackage if there's only headers and a static lib to ship. libassuan is one example, libmatroska and libebml were before they got shared libs, and I'm sure there are others examples in the repo. IMO it's not confusing at all, but the right thing to do.
What's the status of this package ? It seems to have been approved, but is still blocking FE-NEW. It's not been imported, nor built...
It's been imported and built... I suppose that I should have closed it out...
Right. I also put the proper blocker to FE-ACCEPT.