[Bug 541524] Review Request: a2jmidid - Daemon for exposing ALSA sequencer applications in JACK MIDI system

[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=541524

Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> 2010-07-15 13:31:28 EDT ---
Fedora Review a2jmidid 2010-07-15

The build uses the bundles waf that comes in the package rather than the
system waf provided by the waf package - any reason for that?

I can't find and guidelines about waf and bundling, the only thing I
found was this thread on the packaging mailing list, which seems to
favour using the system waf - but the discussion doesn't seen to have
to have ended up in any written guidelines:

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2009-February/005722.html


rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint a2jmidid-6-2.fc12.src.rpm a2jmidid-6-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm
a2jmidid-debuginfo-6-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm
a2jmidid.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary a2j_control
a2jmidid.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary j2amidi_bridge
a2jmidid.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary a2j
a2jmidid.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary a2jmidi_bridge
a2jmidid.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary a2jmidid
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Missing manpages is not a blocker.


+ Package is named according to guidelines
+ Specfile is named after the package
+ License tag GPLv2+ is a Fedora approved license

- Only a2jmidi_bridge.c and j2amidi_bridge.c seems to be GPLv2+, the
  rest of the files are GPLv2 - they don't have the "or (at your
  option) any later version" in their license text. Using the license
  tag GPLv2 seems more appropriate.

+ The license file gpl2.txt is included as %doc
+ Specfile is written in legible English
+ Source matches upstream:

$ md5sum srpm/a2jmidid-6.tar.bz2 a2jmidid-6.tar.bz2 
461969bc19a5331e9e81441c6431ef20  srpm/a2jmidid-6.tar.bz2
461969bc19a5331e9e81441c6431ef20  a2jmidid-6.tar.bz2

+ Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2322262

? BuildRequires are sane, but consider the issue with the bundled waf above.

+ No locales
+ No shared libraries
+ No bundled libraries
+ Package owns directories it creates
+ No duplicate files
+ Permissions are sane and &files has %defattr
+ Specfile uses macros consistently
+ Contains code
+ %doc is not runtime essential
+ No headers
+ No static libraries
+ No libtool archives
+ Package does not own other's directories
+ Installed files have valid UTF8 filenames

-- 
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.