[Bug 866156] Review Request: giada - audio looper for JACK

Mon Nov 26 12:52:56 UTC 2012

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866156

--- Comment #12 from Ismael Olea <ismael at olea.org> ---
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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[?]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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.
     Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installsf a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
     such a file.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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]: 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:
     "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/olea/giada-build-r4/review-giada/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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.
     Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
[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 61440 bytes in 4 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)
[-]: 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.
 * Seems my pulseaudio system is not compatible with rtaudio

[!]: Latest version is packaged.
 * last upstream is 0.5.4

[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
 * you should contribute desktop file, and the patch if considered useful to
upstream
 and provide the links to those
 See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment

[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[!]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 * as desktop file doesn't include a MimeType key it not needs the
 update-destkop-database calls
 See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database

[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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: giada-debuginfo-0.5.2-4.fc19.i686.rpm
          giada-0.5.2-4.fc19.src.rpm
          giada-0.5.2-4.fc19.i686.rpm
giada.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US looper -> loopier, blooper,
looser
giada.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolit -> toolkit, too lit,
too-lit
giada.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US looper -> loopier, blooper,
looser
giada.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolit -> toolkit, too lit,
too-lit
giada.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary giada
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Requires
--------
giada-debuginfo-0.5.2-4.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

giada-0.5.2-4.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    /bin/sh  
    libX11.so.6  
    libXext.so.6  
    libXft.so.2  
    libXpm.so.4  
    libasound.so.2  
    libc.so.6  
    libdl.so.2  
    libfltk.so.1.3  
    libgcc_s.so.1  
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)  
    libjack.so.0  
    libm.so.6  
    libpthread.so.0  
    libpulse-simple.so.0  
    librtaudio.so.4  
    libsndfile.so.1  
    libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)  
    libstdc++.so.6  
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)  
    rtld(GNU_HASH)  

Provides
--------
giada-debuginfo-0.5.2-4.fc19.i686.rpm:

    giada-debuginfo = 0.5.2-4.fc19
    giada-debuginfo(x86-32) = 0.5.2-4.fc19

giada-0.5.2-4.fc19.i686.rpm:

    giada = 0.5.2-4.fc19
    giada(x86-32) = 0.5.2-4.fc19

MD5-sum check
-------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/giada-looper/giada_0.5.2_src.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
413e7557cdbed087f5c7def9ce4d810fd6c49c0bbba0aae5c080d8e0a2018dc3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
413e7557cdbed087f5c7def9ce4d810fd6c49c0bbba0aae5c080d8e0a2018dc3

Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-17-i386
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec --prebuilt --name giada

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