Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: zynaddsubfx - Real-time software synthesizer


           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-07-22 00:58 EST -------
Cool, looks good now and builds fine; rpmlint is silent.

I note that you don't use a dist tag.  It's not an absolute requirement but it
does simplify your maintenance overhead a bit because it allows you to use the
same spec for multiple distro releases.  I just want to make sure you intended
to leave it out.

The %description leaves a bit to be desired in the grammar department, which is
understandable given that the author is not a native speaker.  Plus "that you'll
boost to an amazing universe of sounds" does put a smile on my face.  I'm not
really sure what to suggest; how about just:

ZynAddSubFX is an open source software synthesizer capable of making a
countless number of instrument sounds.

or somesuch.

I'm not sure that anything you depend on owns /usr/share/icons or the
directories under it.  (At least in FC5.)

Your scriptlets are slightly different from those in
You don't call touch with --no-create; you don't use "||:" on the touch line, 
and you use /usr/bin instead of %{_bindir}.
I'm not sure what difference the first two make in practise.  The latter is a
stylistic issue; the macro is generally preferred over hardcoded paths, but the
suggested scriptlets are not consistent in this.

* source files match upstream:
   fca8560e37d799bd20d17e22b11674d6  ZynAddSubFX-2.2.1.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* Compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   zynaddsubfx = 2.2.1-6
   fltk >= 1.1.3
   jack-audio-connection-kit >= 0.101.1
   mxml >= 2.2
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
X owns the directories it creates. (/usr/share/icons)
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
? scriptlets present; differ from the suggested ones.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* GUI app; desktop file installed properly.  No MIME types defined, so no need
to update the desktop database.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to