[Bug 189690] Review Request: swh-plugins
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: swh-plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=189690 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189690] Review Request: swh-plugins
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: swh-plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189690
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-15 09:14 EST ---
Something ought to be done about
%{_datadir}/ladspa/rdf/*
however, since currently, the directories are orphaned. Depending
on administrator's umask, they can be created with insufficient
file access permissions. The directories don't belong in the
ladspa package and not in to liblrdf either. So it would be
fine if every ladspa plugin package owned them.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189690] Review Request: swh-plugins
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: swh-plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189690 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-24 11:07 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > No need to post the revised spec & srpm. Ok. Thanks for your quick response. I've imported this package and requested an FC-5 branch. I'll close this with NEXTRELEASE now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189690] Review Request: swh-plugins
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: swh-plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189690 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-24 10:05 EST --- No need to post the revised spec & srpm. I already changed the status of this to FE-ACCEPT, since most of the changes were minor and could be fixed when you imported this into CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189690] Review Request: swh-plugins
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: swh-plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189690 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-24 07:19 EST --- Thanks for looking at this. (In reply to comment #2) > * rpmlint gives the following, which are fairly self-explanatory to fix: > W: swh-plugins summary-ended-with-dot A set of audio plugins for LADSPA. > E: swh-plugins zero-length /usr/share/doc/swh-plugins-0.4.14/NEWS Fixed. > * The BuildRequirements for pkgconfig, gettext, libtool, bison, and > perl-XML-Parser are unnecessary since Mock should pulls these in the minimum > chroot. Ok, I've removed these. But shouldn't the Exceptions section of the packaging guidelines mention these packages as well? > * Don't package the INSTALL doc, since it's the generic GNU Autotools file. Right. Updated bits here: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/swh-plugins.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/swh-plugins-0.4.14-2.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189690] Review Request: swh-plugins
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: swh-plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189690 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-23 15:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > * Package installs and uninstalls cleanly on FC4. Whoops, meant to write FC5. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189690] Review Request: swh-plugins
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: swh-plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189690 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-23 15:31 EST --- PUBLISH +1 MD5Sums: 1d8418b85034ee9153c726c4c7188a1a swh-plugins-0.4.14.tar.gz Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * All desired features are enabled * Builds fine in Mock. * Package installs and uninstalls cleanly on FC4. Notes: * rpmlint gives the following, which are fairly self-explanatory to fix: W: swh-plugins summary-ended-with-dot A set of audio plugins for LADSPA. E: swh-plugins zero-length /usr/share/doc/swh-plugins-0.4.14/NEWS * The BuildRequirements for pkgconfig, gettext, libtool, bison, and perl-XML-Parser are unnecessary since Mock should pulls these in the minimum chroot. * Don't package the INSTALL doc, since it's the generic GNU Autotools file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189690] Review Request: swh-plugins
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: swh-plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189690 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-23 13:39 EST --- I'll do a formal review on this later today. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
