[Bug 529496] Review Request: libmtag - An advanced C music tagging library with a simple API
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jan 12 15:50:49 UTC 2010
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
--- Comment #18 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> 2010-01-12 10:50:46 EST ---
No reviewer will approve a src.rpm that gives 404 Not Found already for the
And with a manual download by visiting the web page, the result is:
$ md5sum libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
$ md5sum ~/Downloads/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
That's something you do need to fix, because so far it doesn't demonstrate that
you know your stuff.
The other issues pointed out in comment 2 are still true, too. If you cannot
proceed without releasing a new tarball upstream first, well, then consider
doing that release. Where exactly are your difficulties in preparing an updated
spec and src.rpm that would pass review? AFAIK, 0.3.2 has been released by you
in Nov 2009 already.
It's spelled out in the guide:
| * Make sure that your package meets the Packaging Guidelines
| and PackageNamingGuidelines .
| * Be aware of Forbidden Items and Package Review Guidelines
| (they will be used during the package review).
Effectively, the person who wants to join the package collection maintainers
(aka the "packager" group in the Fedora Account System) is expected to do a
little bit of home work prior to and during the review process.
The detailed documentation for the Review Process explicitly explains that it
may be necessary to provide an updated spec file and src.rpm after issues have
been pointed out: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
> As a good sponsor you *should* leave aside your personal agendas and
> follow Fedora's guidelines.
Which ones are that? These?
What you've been given in this ticket so far by two people is general guidance,
especially since you are upstream *and* the package submitter. [Normally, the
packager would communicate with upstream and forward flaws found during
A more interesting read is this:
It explains what is expected from you at a technical level.
[Applying the LGPL]
> * The text says 'library', and I often have to change it to 'program'
> * If the FSF changes their address (again), all the notices
That's splitting-hairs again. The tarball in the src.rpm, which is presented
for review, does not mention the licensing at all. That's the worst-case.
You were pointed at Fedora's guidelines about that. You refused to include the
license terms in the tarball,
and you refused to acknowledge the licensing in the source files (three files
only at present).
However, in 0.3.2 upstream tarball, without mentioning it here, you added a
one-line licensing header to the source files nevertheless. Some sort of
compromise. That's not the best you could have done, but it's a beginning.
> WTF are you talking about?
About strange/superfluous comments that only confuse matters. One can really
get lost in all your excuses, such as the one about too much noise in compiler
output. You can fill pages with ramblings about stuff you don't like to do, and
at the end still all that will be important is to provide a src.rpm that
actually fixes issues and will pass review.
> I didn't know as a Contributor I was supposed to join as maintainer.
Then that would have been a chance to ask here or in relevant places. Several
web pages end at the same "Join" page for package maintainers:
And another page explains the details, such as updating a src.rpm with fixes
> Now, if you do want me to comment on the lack of documentation
> of the 'tools' package, I would rather remove it.
That would be an option.
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.
More information about the package-review