Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: phat - GTK library for audio software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
Summary: Review Request: phat - GTK library for audio software Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: brendan.jones.it@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
This package has existed in Planet CCRMA for some time. I will be requiring it for another package.
I have updated to meet Fedora's guidelines:
http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/phat-0.4.1-1.fc16.src.rpm http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/phat.spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin.gieseking@uos.de
--- Comment #1 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2011-07-23 03:47:53 EDT --- Here are some initial comments:
- The license seems to be GPLv2+ according to the copyright info in phat/phatknob.c.
- Drop BR: gtk-doc, and add Requires: gtk-doc to the docs package.
- I recommend to replace the explicit name "phat" with %{name} in the Requires fields. It ensures that the subpackages always require the base package even if the name changes for some reason.
- As the devel package contains more than just the header files, I suggest to mention the other files as well.
- Please be a bit more specific in %files: %{_bindir}/phat*
- To simplify future updates, avoid mentioning the soversion and replace %{_libdir}/libphat.so.0* with %{_libdir}/libphat.so.*
- Fedora usually doesn't ship static libraries except if necessary for some purpose. Thus, add --disable-static to %configure and drop the .a file from %files devel.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
--- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-07-23 09:30:26 EDT --- Thanks Martin, I have made the required changes.
bsjones@f15laptop ~$rpmlint /home/rawhide/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/phat*0.4.1-2*.rpm /home/rawhide/rpmbuild/SRPMS/phat-0.4.1-2.fc16.src.rpm phat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatfanslider phat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatsliderbutton phat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatpad phat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatknob phat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatkeyboard phat-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/phat-0.4.1/phat/phatknob.c phat-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US developming -> developing, development phat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.
Ignore the address warning, it is split over two lines and the '*' in the comment causes the false positive.
http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/phat-0.4.1-2.fc16.src.rpm http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/phat.spec
Cheers
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
--- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-07-23 09:35:06 EDT --- And corrected spelling.
bsjones@f15laptop ~$rpmlint /home/rawhide/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/phat*0.4.1-3*.rpm /home/rawhide/rpmbuild/SRPMS/phat-0.4.1-3.fc16.src.rpm phat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatfanslider phat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatsliderbutton phat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatpad phat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatknob phat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatkeyboard phat-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/phat-0.4.1/phat/phatknob.c phat-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/phat-0.4.1-3.fc16.src.rpm http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/phat.spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
Veeti Paananen veeti.paananen@rojekti.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |veeti.paananen@rojekti.fi
--- Comment #4 from Veeti Paananen veeti.paananen@rojekti.fi 2011-07-23 11:50:48 EDT --- The base package requirement in the subpackages needs to be in the format "%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}" (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
--- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-07-24 05:50:49 EDT --- Thanks for that:
http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/phat-0.4.1-4.fc16.src.rpm http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/phat.spec
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |martin.gieseking@uos.de Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking martin.gieseking@uos.de 2011-07-25 10:06:03 EDT --- The package looks fine now. If you want to build it for EPEL < 6 too, you have to add Requires: pkgconfig to the devel package. Otherwise, you can drop all the buildroot stuff, but that's not a blocker.
$ rpmlint *.rpm phat.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatsliderbutton phat.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatkeyboard phat.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatknob phat.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatfanslider phat.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phatpad phat-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/phat-0.4.1/phat/phatknob.c phat-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings.
--------------------------------- key:
[+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work ---------------------------------
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. - GPLv2+
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ md5sum phat-0.4.1.tar.gz* b8d1d3ae0d7094d705a33753fe821ebc phat-0.4.1.tar.gz b8d1d3ae0d7094d705a33753fe821ebc phat-0.4.1.tar.gz.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: If a package contains .so files with a suffix, then .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,... - the sample (GUI) applications don't need .desktop files as they are plain demos without any useful functionality to the user.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
EPEL <= 5 only: [+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [X] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
---------------- Package APPROVED ----------------
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
--- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-07-25 17:09:50 EDT --- Thanks Martin.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
--- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-07-25 17:11:19 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: phat Short Description: GTK library for audio applications Owners: bsjones Branches: f14 f15 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
--- Comment #9 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-07-27 16:59:15 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: phat Short Description: GTK library for audio applications Owners: bsjones Branches: f16 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
--- Comment #10 from Veeti Paananen veeti.paananen@rojekti.fi 2011-07-27 17:11:58 EDT --- Looks like you forgot to set the fedora-cvs flag to "?".
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #11 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 2011-07-27 17:14:44 EDT --- Indeed!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-07-27 20:34:11 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-28 11:16:36 EDT --- phat-0.4.1-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/phat-0.4.1-4.fc16
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-28 17:33:14 EDT --- phat-0.4.1-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725128
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |phat-0.4.1-4.fc16 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-11-13 00:31:11
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-13 00:31:11 EST --- phat-0.4.1-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org