Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461402
Summary: Review Request: nted - Musical score editor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rhbugs@n-dimensional.de QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/nted/1.0.7-1.fc9/nted.spec SRPM URL: http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/nted/1.0.7-1.fc9/nted-1.0.7-1.fc9.src.... Description:
NtEd is a GTK score editor. It intends to be really WYSIWYG: what you see on the screen is exactly what you get on printer output. It supports up to 4 voices per staff, drum notes, 5 lyrics lines, N-Tuplets, context changes, repeats with alternatives, configurable music instruments per staff, MIDI and Postscript export, MusicXML import. Scores can be played through the ALSA sequencer.
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=461402
--- Comment #1 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhbugs@n-dimensional.de 2008-09-07 06:20:35 EDT --- Build log, %files list, zero rpmlint output here:
http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/nted/1.0.7-1.fc9/
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=461402
--- Comment #2 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhbugs@n-dimensional.de 2008-09-07 06:21:26 EDT --- Successful koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=811615
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=461402
Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhbugs@n-dimensional.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michel.sylvan@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhbugs@n-dimensional.de 2008-09-07 06:23:06 EDT --- *** Bug 444257 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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=461402
Andreas Thienemann andreas@bawue.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andreas@bawue.net AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |andreas@bawue.net
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=461402
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Thienemann andreas@bawue.net 2008-09-07 07:47:25 EDT --- OK: source files match upstream: 0d884dc48b21831dd1ba51fac82d15116bcea202abecdec9182b217f4152fb6e OK: package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK: specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK: dist tag is present. OK: build root is correct. OK: license field matches the actual license. OK: license is open source-compatible. GPLv2+ and GFDL OK: latest version is being packaged. OK: BuildRequires are proper. OK: compiler flags are appropriate. OK: %clean is present. OK: package builds in mock. OK: package installs properly. OK: debuginfo package looks complete. OK: rpmlint is silent. OK: final provides and requires are sane: Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Requires: libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides: nted = 1.0.7-1.fc10 nted(x86-64) = 1.0.7-1.fc10 OK: no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK: owns the directories it creates. OK: doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK: no duplicates in %files. OK: file permissions are appropriate. OK: no scriptlets present. OK: code, not content. OK: documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK: %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK: no headers. OK: no pkgconfig files. OK: no libtool .la droppings. OK: desktop files valid and installed properly.
PASS: license text included in package. Upstream is shipping the wrong COPYING file it seems. The file declares GPLv3+ while the header in each file claims GPLv2+. _NOT_ shipping the COPYING file sounds acceptable.
Please fix the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT usage to be in consistent style with the usage of %{name}-type variables.
%docdir usage is wrong, please fix.
As soon as that's done, package can be considered ACCEPT.
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=461402
--- Comment #5 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhbugs@n-dimensional.de 2008-09-07 08:00:47 EDT --- * Sun Sep 07 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann hun@n-dimensional.de - 1.0.7-2 - Consistently use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Ship upstream's now correct COPYING file. - Ship all docs disregarding the languages. (remove all %docdir and %lang stuff)
http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/nted/1.0.7-2.fc9/ http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/nted/1.0.7-2.fc9/nted.spec http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/nted/1.0.7-2.fc9/nted-1.0.7-2.fc9.src....
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461402
--- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-09-07 08:20:09 EDT --- For me the "COPYING" file in nted 1.0.7 tarball seems GPLv2...??
By the way: --------------------------------------------------------------- %configure --docdir='%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}' ...... mv %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} docs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Can these two lines simplified by the following? (I just looked at your spec file) ---------------------------------------------------------------- %configure --docdir=$(pwd)/docs ......... rm -rf %{buildroot} # Once clean up for --short-circuit rm -rf docs make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} ----------------------------------------------------------------
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=461402
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-09-07 08:22:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
Can these two lines simplified by the following? (I just looked at your spec file)
%configure --docdir=$(pwd)/docs ......... rm -rf %{buildroot} # Once clean up for --short-circuit rm -rf docs make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Throw this away, soon I found this is wrong, sorry...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461402
--- Comment #8 from Andreas Thienemann andreas@bawue.net 2008-09-07 08:38:15 EDT --- Looking good.
ACCEPT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461402
--- Comment #9 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhbugs@n-dimensional.de 2008-09-07 08:58:54 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: nted Short Description: Musical score editor Owners: ndim Branches: F-9
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461402
--- Comment #10 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhbugs@n-dimensional.de 2008-09-07 18:12:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
For me the "COPYING" file in nted 1.0.7 tarball seems GPLv2...??
Yupp, I noticed that upstream has implemented my suggestions and fixed it, so that is in 1.0.7-2.
By the way:
%configure --docdir='%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}' ...... mv %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} docs
Can these two lines simplified by the following? (I just looked at your spec file)
%configure --docdir=$(pwd)/docs
No. The application actually looks for the docs at the configured directory. It does not affect nted operation. Absence of the docs does not affect actual nted operation, it just disables calling the online help, and thus is according to policy.
Anyway, nted needs to know where to look for the docs, and --docdir tells it.
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=461402
--- Comment #11 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-09-07 22:22:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
By the way:
%configure --docdir='%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}' ...... mv %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} docs
Can these two lines simplified by the following? (I just looked at your spec file)
%configure --docdir=$(pwd)/docs
No. The application actually looks for the docs at the configured directory. It does not affect nted operation. Absence of the docs does not affect actual nted operation, it just disables calling the online help, and thus is according to policy.
Anyway, nted needs to know where to look for the docs, and --docdir tells it.
Yes, this is my mistake, please ignore.
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=461402
--- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-09-08 00:12:11 EDT --- cvs done.
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=461402
Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhbugs@n-dimensional.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #13 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann rhbugs@n-dimensional.de 2008-09-08 03:59:47 EDT --- Thanks for reviewing and CVS. Updates are out.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org