[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: nted - Musical score editor


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257


rhbugs at n-dimensional.de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEEDINFO
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(michel.sylvan at gmai
                   |                            |l.com)




------- Additional Comments From rhbugs at n-dimensional.de  2008-05-04 03:47 EST -------
Review Guidelines MUST items:
OK: rpmlint produces no output
OK: naming guidelines
OK: %{name}.spec
??: Packaging Guidelines
FAIL: Licensing Guidelines
      All the source files seem to be GPLv2+.
      Help->About dialog is GPLv2+.
      But COPYING is GPLv3
OK: License field match (GPLv2+)
OK: %doc COPYING
OK: spec file in en_US
OK: legible spec file
OK: Sources match upstream
OK: Compiles and builds on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64:
    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=594520
N/A: Builds on all arches
OK: All build deps listed
OK: Uses %find_lang
N/A: no shared libs
N/A: not relocatable
OK: owns all created dirs
OK: no duplicate files in %files
OK: proper file permissions
OK: %clean with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK: consistent use of macros
OK: packagecontains code
OK: Those two HTML manuals are not necessarily "large docs" for a -doc pkg.
    Oh, and they are needed as online help at runtime.
OK: %doc files must not affect runtime...
    Ah, THAT is why the en and de HTML manuals are not %doc.
N/A: No header files
N/A: no static libs
N/A: no foo.pc file
N/A: no libfoo.so.1.1
N/A: devel package
N/A: no .la files
OK: desktop file
    OK, but German translations to go with the German manual would be nice.
OK: Does not own other apps' files or dirs
OK: %install starts with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK: All filenames are valid ASCII and thus UTF-8

Review Guidelines SHOULD items:
FAIL: No COPYING for GPLv2
??: Are Summary(de) and %description(de) available?
OK: Builds in local mock
OK: Builds in Fedora koji on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64
OK: Appears to function as described.
N/A: No scriptlets
N/A: no subpackages
N/A: no foo.pc
N/A: no file deps

Packaging Guidelines:
??: Is there a reason not to use the standard compiler flags?
    Maybe add CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" to the
    "make" line?
FAIL: Creates both /usr/share/doc/%{name} and /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}
      Adding "--docdir=%{_docdir}" to "%configure" might help.
- Wasn't there a way to mark the language of the "de" HTML manual?
  Not that any of the policy requires that...

General remarks which do not affect the outcome of the review:
- I'd recommend to add a "-b .slur" to "%patch1 -p1"
- There are a number of compiler warnings which scream for a fix:
  voice.cpp:2071: warning: suggest parentheses around && within ||
  chordorrest.cpp:2142: warning: format '%x' expects type 'unsigned int', but
argument 2 has type 'NedChordOrRest*'
  chordorrest.cpp:2284: warning: comparisons like X<=Y<=Z do not have their
mathematical meaning

NEEDSWORK

And on we go to the next iteration.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.