[Bug 529496] Review Request: libmtag - An advanced C music tagging library with a simple API

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529496

--- Comment #21 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> 2010-01-12 12:35:58 EST ---
> % spectool -g libmtag.spec
> “./libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz” saved

$ rpmdev-extract libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src.rpm 
libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag.spec
$ md5sum libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
6c57340a60a82f2732d5b55c78c994f0  libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
$ spectool -g libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag.spec
--2010-01-12 18:07:56-- 
http://libmtag.googlecode.com/files/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
Resolving libmtag.googlecode.com... 209.85.135.82
Connecting to libmtag.googlecode.com|209.85.135.82|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found
2010-01-12 18:07:56 ERROR 404: Not Found.
$ rm -f libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
$ spectool -g libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag.spec
--2010-01-12 18:08:32-- 
http://libmtag.googlecode.com/files/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
Resolving libmtag.googlecode.com... 74.125.43.82
Connecting to libmtag.googlecode.com|74.125.43.82|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found
2010-01-12 18:08:33 ERROR 404: Not Found.
$ rm -f libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
$ md5sum libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz 
7374002ed89009f5f932da4494acff0e  libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz


So:

1.) The checksums still didn't match until you updated the src.rpm!
2.) The 404 error is a problem of wget+googlecode.com on Fedora 12, to
reproduce:

$ touch libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
$ wget http://libmtag.googlecode.com/files/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz 2>&1|grep 404
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found
2010-01-12 18:11:44 ERROR 404: Not Found.


Only 0.3.2-2 includes the changed tarball now.


> That's 200 words just to say "update the SRPM".

Bottom of comment 15 did it in ~6 words.


> An SRPM is essentially a .spec + a tarball. The spec is the same
> posted since the beginning, and the tarball was released as mentioned
> in comment #11. But if you want me to do 'rpmbuild -bs libmtag.spec',
> ok, will do.

It's common practise to do so, not only so reviewers can use rpmdiff as a 
convenient tool to examine the changes between package releases.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor
says: "please post the URLs to the updated SPEC and SRPM file"


> > You were pointed at Fedora's guidelines about that.
> > You refused to include the license terms in the tarball,
>
> That's a lie. I never refused to do that.

And still the 0.3.2-2 src.rpm doesn't include the license terms.
Originally, I just followed:

| https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
| 
| SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s)
| as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query
| upstream to include it.

Let's see. You added a LICENSE file in upstream git on Nov 8th with the commit
message

| Add licence and copyright information
| 
| This should have been like that since the beginning.

(hear! hear!) only to release the 0.3.2 tarball on Nov 21th _without_ including
this LICENSE file. And in the updated src.rpm, you also did not consider fixing
this. How to make sense of that?

-- 
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.