Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 226471 - Merge Review: system-config-soundcard
Summary: Merge Review: system-config-soundcard
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-31 21:07 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2009-09-21 20:36 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-12-18 14:10:28 UTC
panemade: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 21:07:18 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: system-config-soundcard
Initial Owner:

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-09-28 16:26:46 UTC
rpmlint on SRPM and RPM is not clean
system-config-soundcard.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes
system-config-soundcard.src:31: W: prereq-use hicolor-icon-theme
system-config-soundcard.src:160: W: macro-in-%changelog preun
system-config-soundcard.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
system-config-soundcard.src: W: invalid-license GPL

system-config-soundcard.noarch: W: no-documentation
system-config-soundcard.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
system-config-soundcard.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
system-config-soundcard.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
system-config-soundcard.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
system-config-soundcard.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
system-config-soundcard.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
system-config-soundcard.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL
system-config-soundcard.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided redhat-config-soundcard
system-config-soundcard.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
system-config-soundcard.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag

  1) update buildroot tag as given in
  2) packaging guidelines suggests use of make as
  3) missing buildroot cleanup in %install. check
  4) any reason for not using macros for following line om %files section
   %dir /usr/share/system-config-soundcard
  5) Any reason for commenting %doc COPYING?
  6) good to use %defattr(-,root,root,-)

Update package. Better to provide new SPEC and SRPM links for this package
before actually committing in CVS.

Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-10-16 05:20:39 UTC
ping? any update?

Comment 3 Martin Stransky 2007-10-16 09:42:15 UTC
Taking the bug.

Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-10-16 10:15:13 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Taking the bug.

I saw that
you are owner for this package.
Then how can you take this bug(which is Package review actually)

As you are the owner for package, I guess you can't assign and review this package.

If that was the case then maintainers could have assigned their own packages to
them and we should not need any review for existing core packages.

I have not seen such case till date since Merge-Review got opened.

Comment 5 Martin Stransky 2007-10-16 10:22:47 UTC
And who is supposed to do that changes in the package? 

Comment 6 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-10-16 10:42:35 UTC
Ofcourse Package maintainer as reviewer is not have acls to commit review changes.

I think you missed to read this page

There we can find that review process initial steps written as
1. Set the fedora-review flag to ?
2. Assign the bug to yourself.
3. Review the package.

Comment 7 Martin Stransky 2007-10-16 10:57:20 UTC
Okay, I'll assign the bug back to you when I do that changes.

Comment 8 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-10-16 11:54:30 UTC
Thanks for understanding Package review process.

Comment 9 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-10-24 14:06:46 UTC
Any updates?

Comment 10 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-02 13:08:26 UTC
Will ping maintainer on fedora-devel after one week if i will not get any
updates here.

  Maintainer failed to keep promise to give updates by assigning bug to himself
which is not the procedure of fedora-review.

Comment 11 Martin Stransky 2007-12-03 08:42:25 UTC
fixes added to system-config-soundcard-2.0.6-12.fc9

Comment 12 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-04 12:37:06 UTC
other packages are using following in their specs
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/pam.d/*
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/security/console.apps/*

which your spec lacks thus rpmlint reported warning.
Fix that. 

I think you should look other system-config-* package SPECs which got
successfully reviewed.

Comment 13 Martin Stransky 2007-12-04 13:10:06 UTC
Sure, I'll fix it immediately. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Comment 14 Martin Stransky 2007-12-05 11:26:31 UTC
fixes added to system-config-soundcard-2.0.6-13.fc9

Comment 15 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-06 11:45:26 UTC
warning: File listed twice:

system-config-soundcard.src:25: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing.  This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if

please fix them

Comment 16 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-12 14:37:42 UTC
Ok. I assume you will take care of above problem in next release. I will now
approve this. In case anyone find above problem is not fixed in next release of
this package, kindly open new bug or mail to fedora-devel list.
I don't want to wait more on this review now.

Will wait for another week for any update otherwise will CLOSE this then.


Comment 17 Martin Stransky 2007-12-12 15:16:49 UTC
*ANY* version of redhat-config-soundcard is really obsoleted.
redhat-config-soundcard just should not be shipped in Fedora.

/usr/share/system-config-soundcard/system-config-soundcard.logger - it's just a
cosmetic error and i'll fix it someday.

Comment 18 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-12 16:13:05 UTC
Thanks for your quick reply.
unversioned-explicit-obsoletes is ok to ignore.

Comment 19 Parag AN(पराग) 2007-12-18 14:10:28 UTC
Almost one week no reply from maintainer.
Time to close this review considering comment#16

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