Fedora Merge Review: esound http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/esound/ Initial Owner: alexl
New Initial Owner: bnocera
Adding lennart as he's the current package owner.
Uh? What is this about?
You've done regular reviews before for pulseaudio stuff to get into the distro. A merge review is a review being done on a package that got pulled in from Fedora Core without a review. Until a reviewer picks this up, it's basically business as usual. Once a reviewer does start reviewing the package, someone needs to address the issues, answer questions, and apply the changes from the review to the package in cvs. That's usually the package owner which is why I CC'd you. Note that because we don't have enough reviewers, merge reviews have been getting short shrift compared to new review requests. At some point FESCo might give us a deadline for having the merge reviews done but that hasn't occurred yet.
Adding mclasen who's done the most recent changes. - rpmlint checks return: Errors about egrep, had to move the docs to the right place, and some unescaped macros in the comments. I have fixes for these ready. esound.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US audiofile -> audiophile, audio file, audio-file The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. esound-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/esound-0.2.41/getopt.h esound-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/esound-libs-0.2.41/COPYING.LIB The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or misspelled. Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file, possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF. File bugs upstream if you like. esound-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libesddsp.so.0.2.39 exit.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. Fix if possible. esound-libs.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libesddsp.so.0.2.39 ['/usr/lib64'] And many more. The binary or shared library defines `RPATH'. Usually this is a bad thing because it hardcodes the path to search libraries and so makes it difficult to move libraries around. Most likely you will find a Makefile with a line like: gcc test.o -o test -Wl,--rpath. Also, sometimes configure scripts provide a --disable-rpath flag to avoid this. Fix. The --disable-rpath flag at configure doesn't fix this. esound-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Commandline -> Command line, Command-line, Commandment The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. esound-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US commandline -> command line, command-line, commandment The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. Ignore. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license ( LGPLv2+ ) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) . . .once I moved the docs. - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig ok - devel requires base package n-v-r Other than what's in rpmlint it looks good. I'll commit the simple fixes soon unless you object.
Moving the docs doesn't seem to be needed, or work, in rawhide.
Ping?
Committed and built changes to fix everything but the exit() calls. Can you take a look?
Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269 If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.