[Bug 2926] Review request: mpv - Movie player playing most video formats and DVDs
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2926
--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> 2013-08-28 06:57:21 CEST
---
Ok, it looks fine except one small issue (should be fixed before final
submission) - BuildRequires: libvdpau-devel is listed twice.
Here is my REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent (these messages are harmless)
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/mpv-0.1.2-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm
../SRPMS/mpv-0.1.2-2.fc19.src.rpm
mpv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes, coders,
code's
mpv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes, coders,
code's
mpv.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv3
or later, see https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/commit/1752808 )
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum v0.1.2.tar.gz*
9d9d680670308102453c8498580b284d66b673f8f0435254ee131e72d93096c3 v0.1.2.tar.gz
9d9d680670308102453c8498580b284d66b673f8f0435254ee131e72d93096c3
v0.1.2.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (my x86_64 box).
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 A console application, no need to install *.desktop file.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.