https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
Bug ID: 870184 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: drumkv1 - an old-school digital drumkit sampler Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: brendan.jones.it@gmail.com Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
drumkv1 is an old-school all-digital drum-kit sampler synthesizer with stereo fx. It comes in standalone or LV2 flavours
SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/drumkv1.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/drumkv1-0.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
drumkv1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> f, x, fix drumkv1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> f, x, fix drumkv1.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary drumkv1_jack lv2-drumkv1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US synth -> synthesis lv2-drumkv1.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |805236 (FedoraAudio)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |volker27@gmx.at
--- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- desktop file validation belongs in the install section; no check section required.
I suggest to include ChangeLog.
Please give a rationale for changing the compiler flags. Is it possibly something upstream should incorporate?
Since Fedora has no older version of lv2 than 1.0.0, the version requirement is not necessary.
It seems like the hidden .ui and .moc files are still present in the debuginfo package.
You could use the version macro in Source0 one more time.
make %{?_smp_mflags} seems to work for me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com --- Thanks for the comments - changed as requested
SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/drumkv1.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/drumkv1-0.1.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #3 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com ---
SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/drumkv1.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/drumkv1-0.1.0-3.fc18.src.rpm
Removed unwanted source dirs
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |volker27@gmx.at Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4699000 -- Rawhide build
There's no reason for a version constraint on lv2. No maintained release of Fedora has an older version than 1.0.0.
I was wrong about the hidden files in the debugging package. They are vital to debugging and it's a habit of Qmake to hide them. Please don't delete them.
Please report the issue of wrong permissions of the .so upstream.
I assume, the lv2 plug-in doesn't require the base package.
Please see the review below for further details.
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. [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. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Plug-in library in a sub-directory
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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [-]: 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. [!]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
ppc64 build fails: http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=789144&name=build....
[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 -n lv2-%{name}
See comment at the top!
[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: "GPL (v2 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /media/speicher1/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/870184-drumkv1/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Please add COPYING to the lv2 sub-package!
[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. [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: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed
===== 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. [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. PPC is no primary architecture in Fedora
[x]: %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. [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed
Rpmlint ------- Checking: drumkv1-debuginfo-0.1.0-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm drumkv1-0.1.0-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm drumkv1-0.1.0-3.fc19.src.rpm drumkv1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> f, x, fix drumkv1.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary drumkv1_jack drumkv1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> f, x, fix 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint drumkv1 drumkv1-debuginfo drumkv1.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fx -> f, x, fix drumkv1.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary drumkv1_jack 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- drumkv1-debuginfo-0.1.0-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
drumkv1-0.1.0-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libsndfile.so.1()(64bit) libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- drumkv1-debuginfo-0.1.0-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm:
drumkv1-debuginfo = 0.1.0-3.fc19 drumkv1-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.1.0-3.fc19
drumkv1-0.1.0-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm:
drumkv1 = 0.1.0-3.fc19 drumkv1(x86-64) = 0.1.0-3.fc19
Unversioned so-files -------------------- lv2-drumkv1-0.1.0-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/lv2/drumkv1.lv2/drumkv1.so
MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/drumkv1/0.1.0/drumkv1-0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f148bc08bfb9f45425259e9feae17cb18bc63cd491036a08d51e37838e475f32 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f148bc08bfb9f45425259e9feae17cb18bc63cd491036a08d51e37838e475f32
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 870184 -m fedora-devel-x86_64
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com --- Thanks for taking this on.
I've addressed the issues here. Good catch on the power PC build. This applies to a number of other packages from the same author. I'll let him know
%changelog * Sat Nov 17 2012 Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com 0.1.0-4 - Renable hidden source directories - Add COPYING to lv2 plugin - Force LV2 path in configure - Correct arch handling - Remove explicit version requires on lv2
SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/drumkv1.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/drumkv1-0.1.0-4.fc18.src.rpm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Volker Fröhlich volker27@gmx.at --- All issues addressed, APPROVED.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: drumkv1 Short Description: Digital drumkit sampler for JACK Owners: bsjones Branches:f16 f17 f18 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones.it@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review. Let me know if I can help you out.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drumkv1-0.1.0-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drumkv1-0.1.0-4.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drumkv1-0.1.0-4.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drumkv1-0.1.0-4.fc17
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- Package drumkv1-0.1.0-4.fc17: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing drumkv1-0.1.0-4.fc17' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-18458/drumkv1-0.1.0-4.fc... then log in and leave karma (feedback).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drumkv1-0.1.0-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drumkv1-0.1.0-5.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drumkv1-0.1.0-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drumkv1-0.1.0-5.fc17
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-11-27 00:12:43
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drumkv1-0.1.0-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870184
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- drumkv1-0.1.0-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla