Bug 226142 - Merge Review: mikmod
Merge Review: mikmod
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On: 223711
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 14:40 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2010-07-12 13:01 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-12-07 01:38:46 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
bugs.michael: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 14:40:46 EST
Fedora Merge Review: mikmod

Initial Owner: stransky@redhat.com
Comment 1 Michael Schwendt 2007-12-06 15:33:28 EST
> Summary: A MOD music file player

Summary: Music module player

That is because "MOD" is a synonym for the .mod file format of
SoundTracker (and simple derivatives), but not for the more
recent and advanced file formats, such as those mentioned in
the %description. Those are much more commonly called "modules".

> %description

s/MOD music file/music module/g

> Release: 5%{?dist}

Could you please squeeze the "beta1" in there (even if it's too
late to prefix with "0.")? For example:

Release: 6.beta1%{?dist}

> $ rpmlint  /tmp/mikmod-3.2.2-5.fc9.src.rpm 
> mikmod.src:30: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

That command belongs at the beginning of %install, not %build.

Especially the last item must be fixed. The other ones are minor.

Comment 2 Jindrich Novy 2007-12-07 01:38:46 EST
Applied. Thanks!
Comment 3 Peter Robinson 2010-06-10 16:12:13 EDT
Package Change Request
Package Name: mikmod
New Branches: EL-6
Owners: pbrobinson sdz
Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2010-06-11 00:21:40 EDT
Have you checked with jnovy here to see if they would like to maintain in EPEL?
Comment 5 Jindrich Novy 2010-07-11 10:01:41 EDT
Kevin, please could you process the request as noted in comment #3? The reasons are same as in bug 345261.

Comment 6 Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-12 13:01:30 EDT
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.