https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450122
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> ---
There is absolutely no reason for the src.rpm %name to be qt5-qtmidi instead of
qtmidi. Upstream name is "qtmidi", and that ought to be the %name for this
package.
The naming guidelines are also clear about how to name the binary packages:
%{parent}-%{child}, and since there are multiple versions of Qt in the
distribution, an extension lib for Qt5 makes %parent "qt5".
[...]
Regardless of the naming stuff, the package ought to be fixed. Please consider
pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket:
fedora-review -b 1450122
That tool is not only for reviewers. Packagers ought to be familiar with it,
too.
[...]
Some findings based on skimming over the spec file:
Summary: Qt 5 Multimedia Library
Ambiguous. Better:
Platform independent MIDI module for Qt 5.
License: GPL-3.0
This has never been one of the license tags used by Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses
%description
Qt is a set of libraries for developing applications.
Simplified so much, it isn't helpful. Interestingly, the %description of
qt5-qtbase is very simple, too.
This package contains an plugin to support MIDI input and output
devices.
... a plugin ...
%package devel
Summary: Qt Development Kit
Not true. Inaccurate.
Group: Development/Libraries/X11
Unusual, and the "Group:" tag should not be set anymore for years:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
Requires: %{name} = %{version}
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
Provides: libQt5Midi-devel = %{version}
Obsoletes: libQt5Midi-devel < %{version}
Provides: libQt5Midi-private-headers-devel = %{version}
Obsoletes: libQt5Midi-private-headers-devel < %{version}
What other distribution do these try to cover? Debian? Come on, these would be
of very limited use to package users and would only cause Repo/RPM metadata
bloat.
%files private-headers-devel
%license LICENSE.GPLv3
%doc README.md
Superfluous duplication of %license and %doc files, since package depends on
-devel.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component