[Bug 1642056] New: Review Request: traverso - Multitrack Audio Recording and Editing Suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642056
Bug ID: 1642056 Summary: Review Request: traverso - Multitrack Audio Recording and Editing Suite Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vascom2@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/traverso.git/plain/traverso.spec SRPM URL: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/work/tasks/1360/271360/traverso-0.49.5-1...
Package was long time at rpmfusion repo.
Description: Traverso Digital Audio Workstation is a cross platform multitrack audio recording and editing suite, with an innovative and easy to master User Interface. It's suited for both the professional and home user, who needs a robust and solid DAW.
Traverso is a complete solution from recording to CD Mastering. By supplying many common tools in one package, you don't have to learn how to use lots of applications with different user interfaces. This considerably lowers the learning curve, letting you get your audio processing work done faster!
A unique approach to non-linear audio processing was developed for Traverso to provide extremely solid and robust audio processing and editing. Adding and removal of effects plugins, moving Audio Clips and creating new Tracks during playback are all perfectly safe, giving you instant feedback on your work!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642056
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- It would be nice to provide an Appstream data file (and propose it upstream).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642056
--- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com --- I am can't create such file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642056
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 8 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in traverso-debuginfo , traverso-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: traverso-0.49.5-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm traverso-debuginfo-0.49.5-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm traverso-debugsource-0.49.5-1.fc30.x86_64.rpm traverso-0.49.5-1.fc30.src.rpm traverso.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multitrack -> Multiracial traverso.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multitrack -> multiracial traverso.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary traverso traverso.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multitrack -> Multiracial traverso.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multitrack -> multiracial traverso.src: W: invalid-url Source0: traverso-0.49.5.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642056
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/traverso
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642056
Vasiliy Glazov vascom2@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2018-10-25 02:45:04
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com