[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 #22 from Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> 2010-01-12 14:54:13 EST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> > % spectool -g libmtag.spec
> > “./libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz” saved

[...]

> So:
> 
> 1.) The checksums still didn't match until you updated the src.rpm!

Obviously. Because the SRPM was created from with code from October, while the
release tarball was created after the fixes were done, on November.

> 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.

% touch libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz
% get http://libmtag.googlecode.com/files/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz 2>&1|grep 404
(nothing)

Seems to be a problem on your end; I'm also using F12.

> Only 0.3.2-2 includes the changed tarball now.

You mean the new SRPM? Of course.

> > That's 200 words just to say "update the SRPM".
> 
> Bottom of comment 15 did it in ~6 words.

That depends on definition of "package", clearly I didn't know you meant the
SRPM.

> > 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"

Yeah if the SPEC file is updated of course the SRPM needs to be updated, but I
didn't know that the SRPM needed to be updated even if the SPEC file stayed the
same, and only upstream was changed.

Anyway, all you needed was to clarify.

> > > 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:

[...]

> 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?    

Why would anybody add a LICENSE file to the SCM and not release it on the
tarball? I'll help you here: it was a mistake.

Anyway, I've revamped the build system and now the LICENSE is included.

-- 
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.