Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437
Bug ID: 964437 Summary: Review Request: mingw-portmidi - Real-time Midi I/O Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ulatekh@yahoo.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Category: ---
Spec URL: https://www.box.com/s/fx4bwehrbc2yr1206itq SRPM URL: https://www.box.com/s/kli19aumq1xznpizs67t Description: PortMedia is a set of simple clean APIs and cross-platform library implementations for music and other media. PortMidi sub-project provides a real-time MIDI input/output library. This is the MinGW version of a package that Fedora already has in its repository. Fedora Account System Username: ulatekh
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437
Steve ulatekh@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #1 from Steve ulatekh@yahoo.com --- This is my first package; I have a lot more to submit, if this is successful. (My first priority is all of the dependent packages for the MinGW build of Mixxx, http://www.mixxx.org/ .)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437
--- Comment #2 from Steve ulatekh@yahoo.com --- fedora-review found no major issues. The only fixable one it brought up was that both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} were being used; I've fixed that locally. It gave me a bogus error about not using parallel make; I am. Hopefully this helps push this package's review along...I have a LOT more I want to submit :-)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437
greg.hellings@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |greg.hellings@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from greg.hellings@gmail.com --- The error about not using parallel make is because you think you are, but you're not.
You have %{mingw_make} %{?_smp_flags} It should be %{mingw_make} %{?_smp_mflags}
I'm curious as to why you're manually installing what seems to be all of the generated files. That doesn't seem right.
I also don't think we do Desktop files in MinGW.
You should include, at the least, any license files as %doc arguments in MinGW packages. However, other documentation that is present in a native package (e.g. man pages, etc) is not to be in MinGW. As such you can probably leave off the doxygen invocation during build.
I also don't believe we like to keep around all the past Changelog when we create a new port to MinGW. At least I don't keep it lying around.
This is not an official review, just some notes I see while looking through your Spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437
--- Comment #4 from Steve ulatekh@yahoo.com ---
The error about not using parallel make is because you think you are, but you're not.
Ack! Good catch! :-) It's wrong in the existing Fedora version of portmidi, too. However, I'm also getting that error when running fedora-review on my mingw-protobuf, and it's using %{?_smp_mflags}.
I'm manually installing some of the files because I can't figure out why they're not being installed. That seems to be an existing issue with Fedora's portmidi; the hand-installation of pm_common/pmutil.h comes from there.
I've removed the desktop files, re-added the documentation files, and cleared the changelog.
A new source RPM is available at https://www.box.com/s/1i41ub7x6dnlb6bvknix . A new spec file is available at https://www.box.com/s/fkrkwyup790tgfetmevn .
Thank you for your unofficial review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437
--- Comment #5 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com --- Steve, if you are serious about joining as a Fedora package maintainer, you could check out the following process
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
and notice it even mentions a way to request a convenient upload place for your packages/spec files. Potential reviewers will appreciate a less interactive download. Advertizing the review requests and your plans could be helpful, too. And since there are other MinGW based packages in the review queue, trading reviews would be another recommended idea (even before you would be permitted to approve reviewed packages): http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net --- Has anything been tried meanwhile?
Has the Fedora MinGW SIG been contacted yet? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437
Steve ulatekh@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |EOL Last Closed| |2018-01-29 22:44:06
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org