[Bug 882499] Review Request: sbc - Sub Band Codec used by bluetooth A2DP

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882499

Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster at gmail.com> ---
Hi Peter

about rpmlint messages
- The warnings about the spelling errors can be ignored
- It would be nice to come with a man pages, but not is a blocker
- No documentation in the devel package, Since the relevant information is in
the base package, no problem
- Regarding the type of license, the package matches with the license GPLv2, 
but IMO the license tag should be "GPLv2 and LGPLv2+".

Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
     devel
* To me this should be a false alarm, it is obvious that you should use
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} 
   in the devel package to match the correct architecture.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 2 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/makerpm/882499-sbc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: sbc-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
          sbc-devel-1.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
          sbc-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
          sbc-1.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
sbc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
sbc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bluetooth -> Bluetooth, blue tooth,
blue-tooth
sbc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes
sbc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bluetooth -> Bluetooth, blue
tooth, blue-tooth
sbc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subbands -> sub bands,
sub-bands, bandstands
sbc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quantizers -> quantifier
sbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bluetooth -> Bluetooth, blue
tooth, blue-tooth
sbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes
sbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bluetooth -> Bluetooth,
blue tooth, blue-tooth
sbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subbands -> sub bands,
sub-bands, bandstands
sbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quantizers -> quantifier
sbc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sbcenc
sbc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sbcdec
sbc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sbcinfo
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint sbc sbc-devel sbc-debuginfo
sbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bluetooth -> Bluetooth, blue
tooth, blue-tooth
sbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes
sbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bluetooth -> Bluetooth,
blue tooth, blue-tooth
sbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subbands -> sub bands,
sub-bands, bandstands
sbc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quantizers -> quantifier
sbc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sbcenc
sbc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sbcdec
sbc.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sbcinfo
sbc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
sbc-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


sbc-devel-1.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    /usr/bin/pkg-config  
    libsbc.so.1()(64bit)  
    pkgconfig  
    sbc(x86-64) = 1.0-1.fc17

sbc-1.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    /sbin/ldconfig  
    libc.so.6()(64bit)  
    rtld(GNU_HASH)  



Provides
--------
sbc-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:

    sbc-debuginfo = 1.0-1.fc17
    sbc-debuginfo(x86-64) = 1.0-1.fc17

sbc-devel-1.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:

    pkgconfig(sbc) = 1.0
    sbc-devel = 1.0-1.fc17
    sbc-devel(x86-64) = 1.0-1.fc17

sbc-1.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm:

    libsbc.so.1()(64bit)  
    libsbc.so.1(SBC_1.0)(64bit)  
    sbc = 1.0-1.fc17
    sbc(x86-64) = 1.0-1.fc17



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/bluetooth/sbc-1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
fc1442032994c0e8667b9dd512580c3b0b1a67b7e0ac1773de65d774c6ad8845
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
fc1442032994c0e8667b9dd512580c3b0b1a67b7e0ac1773de65d774c6ad8845


I don't see anymore blockers, therefore

----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.