Fedora Merge Review: flac
Initial Owner: email@example.com
Would be my bug actually.
- a dot is used at the end of the Summary lines
- not using suggested BuildRoot
- using %makeinstall, I think %make install should work
- static library is packaged
Should be fixed in 1.1.3-2
The formal review is here:
OK source files match upstream:
OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK build root is correct.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
OK latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (i386).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
OK final provides and requires looks sane:
OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths and ldconfig is
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK headers are in -devel.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK not a GUI app.
BAD rpmlint is NOT silent.
result of running "rpmlint -vi"
W: flac-devel summary-ended-with-dot Static libraries and header files from FLAC.
you forgot the dot in the second Summary ;-)
I: flac.i386.rpm checking
E: flac obsolete-not-provided flac-libs
The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths
and not to break dependencies.
I: flac.srpm checking
W: flac unversioned-explicit-obsoletes flac-libs
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
Some info from the Wiki -
(In reply to comment #4)
> The formal review is here:
> MUST FIX:
> BAD rpmlint is NOT silent.
> result of running "rpmlint -vi"
> W: flac-devel summary-ended-with-dot Static libraries and header files from FLAC.
> you forgot the dot in the second Summary ;-)
> I: flac.i386.rpm checking
> E: flac obsolete-not-provided flac-libs
> The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths
> and not to break dependencies.
Added a Provides.
> I: flac.srpm checking
> W: flac unversioned-explicit-obsoletes flac-libs
> The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
> older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update
> problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
> was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
I'm afraid I don't have a version for the obsoletes. I think flac-libs was being
used by 3rd party repositories before the package was included in RH.
Should all get fixed in the 1.1.4 package (as soon as i resolve patch conflicts)
I don't think we need to care about a historical version from 3rd party repo.
The CVS log show that flac was included into Fedora in FC-2 or FC-3 in September
2004, so I would kill the "Obsolete" entirely. Also I don't think we support
upgrades from such old versions.
But all problems are fixed, so package is APPROVED
Package Change Request
Package Name: flac
New Branches: EL-5 EL-6
A lot of audio packages are currently not available on RHEL; we should try and get these built before the next RHEL-6 beta
My mistake, the package is part of core RHEL (at least for version 5). It's for some reason missing from RHEL 6; I'm clarifying this with epel-devel-list and fedora-devel-list.