[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Bug 499975 depends on bug 499306, which changed state. Bug 499306 Summary: Review Request: jconv - Jack Convolution Engine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499306 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-15 21:59:41 EDT --- guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.04.5-1.fc9 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.04.5-1.fc9|0.04.5-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-15 22:24:09 EDT --- guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-15 22:42:18 EDT --- guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|0.04.5-1.fc10 |0.04.5-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-29 02:04:18 EDT --- guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-29 02:05:09 EDT --- guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-29 02:03:23 EDT --- guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-29 22:30:47 EDT --- guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update guitarix'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-5671 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-29 22:36:36 EDT --- guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update guitarix'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-5699 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-05-29 22:39:16 EDT --- guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update guitarix'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-5707 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? Bug 499975 depends on bug 499323, which changed state. Bug 499323 Summary: Review Request: jack_capture - Record sound files with JACK https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499323 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-05-28 21:23:03 EDT --- Thank you Igor, for the review! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: guitarix Short Description: Mono amplifier to JACK Owners: oget Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-05-29 00:52:22 EDT --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Igor Jurišković juriskovic.i...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Igor Jurišković juriskovic.i...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||juriskovic.i...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juriskovic.i...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Igor Jurišković juriskovic.i...@gmail.com 2009-05-27 07:47:20 EDT --- Hi. I'll take this one. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #4 from Igor Jurišković juriskovic.i...@gmail.com 2009-05-27 07:56:11 EDT --- License* -- COPYING file says GPLv2 or higher. You should change license to mentioned one. By the way you could contact upstream and tell him to include license in header of source files. -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-05-27 12:49:35 EDT --- Tank you. The licensing guideline says If neither the source, nor the upstream composed documentation says anything about the license version, then it could be under _ANY_ version of the GPL. The version listed in COPYING is irrelevant from this perspective. Technically it could be under any license, but if all we have to go by is COPYING, we'll use COPYING to imply that it is under the GPL, all versions (GPL+). That's why I used GPL+. Please see case #4 at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ I already asked Hermann to include the GPL version in the source headers a while ago (around guitarix-0.04-2) but he didn't do it. I guess we will have to live with what we have. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Igor Jurišković juriskovic.i...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975
--- Comment #6 from Igor Jurišković juriskovic.i...@gmail.com 2009-05-27
16:32:39 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review. YES
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. YES
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. YES
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. YES
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. YES
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
YES
MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc. YES
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. YES
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. YES
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this. YES
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. YES
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. N/A
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. YES
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory. YES
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. YES
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. YES
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. YES
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. YES
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). N/A
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present. YES
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability). N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} N/A
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built. N/A
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
YES
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-05-26 16:54:03 EDT --- Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/guitarix.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/guitarix-0.04.5-1.fc10.src.rpm Changelog: 0.04.5-1 - Update to 0.04.5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 --- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com 2009-05-21 13:43:14 EDT --- Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/guitarix.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/guitarix-0.04.4-1.fc10.src.rpm Changelog: 0.04.4-1 - Update to 0.04.4 - Drop upstreamed patches -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 499975] Review Request: guitarix - Mono amplifier to JACK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499975 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||499306, 499323 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
