https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356
Bug ID: 1210356 Summary: Review Request: drumgizmo - a drum kit renderer (cli and lv2 plugin) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nils.tonnaett@gmx.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://ntonnaett.fedorapeople.org/drumgizmo.spec SRPM URL: https://ntonnaett.fedorapeople.org/drumgizmo-0.9.8.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: DrumGizmo is an open source cross-platform drum plugin and stand-alone application. It is comparable to several commercial drum plugin products.
DrumGizmo uses an open drum-kit file format, allowing the community to create their own drum-kits. It has multichannel output, making it possible to mix it just the way you would a real drum-kit. The optional built-in humanizer analyzes the midi notes, adjusting velocities on-the-fly. This client can be a stand-alone midi renderer, generating .wav files, 1 for each channel. Or use DrumGizmo as a software sampler for an electronic drum-kit. There are also plugin versions available.
For more information please visit http://www.drumgizmo.org
This is my first package. So I need a sponsor. I worked with upstream developers to get the project ready for fedora packaging.
koji builds for f21 and f22. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9441014 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9441072
Fedora Account System Username: ntonnaett
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356
Nils Tonnätt nils.tonnaett@gmx.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356
Sinny Kumari ksinny@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ksinny@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Sinny Kumari ksinny@gmail.com --- This is un-official review of the package
Issues ------- 1. License field should be GPLv3+ instead of GPLv3 because COPYING file says " either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." Also, source code mention same 2. %license macro should be used instead of %doc for License files https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
%license COPYING
3. Source tar ball also contains test directory. I think if test works then it should be added in %check section in order to catch issues.
Other than that package looks good to me.
Complete review of package using fedora-review tool ---------------------------------------------------- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: 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. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: 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) (with incorrect FSF address)", "ISC", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/skumari/fedora- review/drumgizmo/review-drumgizmo/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/lv2 [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 102400 bytes in 8 files. [ ]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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 do not use a name that already exist [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lv2-drumgizmo [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: drumgizmo-0.9.8.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm lv2-drumgizmo-0.9.8.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm drumgizmo-0.9.8.1-1.fc21.src.rpm drumgizmo.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C DrumGizmo drumgizmo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multichannel -> multiplicand drumgizmo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US renderer -> tenderer, rendered, render er drumgizmo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wav -> av, wave, wavy drumgizmo.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C DrumGizmo drumgizmo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multichannel -> multiplicand drumgizmo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US renderer -> tenderer, rendered, render er drumgizmo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wav -> av, wave, wavy 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- lv2-drumgizmo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(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) libz.so.1()(64bit) libzita-resampler.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
drumgizmo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libexpat.so.1()(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) libzita-resampler.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- lv2-drumgizmo: lv2-drumgizmo lv2-drumgizmo(x86-64)
drumgizmo: drumgizmo drumgizmo(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- drumgizmo: /usr/lib64/drumgizmo/input/dummy.so drumgizmo: /usr/lib64/drumgizmo/input/jackmidi.so drumgizmo: /usr/lib64/drumgizmo/input/test.so drumgizmo: /usr/lib64/drumgizmo/output/alsa.so drumgizmo: /usr/lib64/drumgizmo/output/dummy.so drumgizmo: /usr/lib64/drumgizmo/output/jackaudio.so drumgizmo: /usr/lib64/drumgizmo/output/wavfile.so lv2-drumgizmo: /usr/lib64/lv2/drumgizmo.lv2/drumgizmo.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.drumgizmo.org/releases/drumgizmo-0.9.8.1/drumgizmo-0.9.8.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ef992cec33caff2e7b7d69609da235933a39c7653516f7e6c8357c0539948ede CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ef992cec33caff2e7b7d69609da235933a39c7653516f7e6c8357c0539948ede
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n drumgizmo Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356
--- Comment #2 from Nils Tonnätt nils.tonnaett@gmx.net --- Thank you for your (un-official) review.
I'm a bit confused. Why is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package saying that %license is not valid under fedora? The example %files section is using '%doc LICENSE' too.
I updated the spec and srpm. %license is doing something special. But fedora-review says:
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. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
I didn't add %check because it doesn't work. I will contact the developers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356
--- Comment #3 from Sinny Kumari ksinny@gmail.com --- (In reply to Nils Tonnätt from comment #2)
Thank you for your (un-official) review.
I'm a bit confused. Why is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package saying that %license is not valid under fedora? The example %files section is using '%doc LICENSE' too.
Yes, this wiki says to include License file using %doc macro but I have got suggestion to use %license macro for license files from official Fedora reviewer (BZ#1182261#c9). Maybe https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package needs to be updated as well.
I updated the spec and srpm. %license is doing something special. But fedora-review says:
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. Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
I think, this can be ignored.
I didn't add %check because it doesn't work. I will contact the developers.
That would be great
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356
--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) bugs.micheal@gmx.net --- As fedora-review prints excerpts from the guidelines, those can be out-of-date. More relevant are the printed links to the guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
It's only since the last edit of that Wiki page (January 2015) that %license is mentioned in that section.
%dir %{_libdir}/lv2/drumgizmo.lv2/
Without an explicit dependency on package "lv2", directory %{_libdir}/lv2/ would be without owner:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Owner...
AFAIR, LV2 still is not a shared lib that would result in an automatic dependency.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla