[Bug 750139] Review Request: lv2-mdala-plugins - LV2 port of the MDA VST plugins

[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=750139

--- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> 2011-11-23 18:14:07 EST ---
Here are a few preliminary comments.  First, the BuildRoot tag is not necessary
on Fedora.  Second, it appears that README does not need to have its line
endings converted, and neither README nor COPYING need to be converted to
UTF-8.  Third, it looks like the source files are not being compiled with
RPM_OPT_FLAGS.  Is that right?  If I'm reading the docs right, I think you want
to configure like this:

CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" ./waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir}

Fourth, I'm not familiar with waf.  Is it wise to use the shipped version,
instead of the version in the Fedora waf package?

+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
N: not applicable

MUST:
[+] rpmlint output:
lv2-mdala-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phaser ->
phase, phrase, phases
lv2-mdala-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reverb ->
revere, revers, revert
lv2-mdala-plugins.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
lv2-mdala-plugins-0-svn3580.tar.bz2
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[=] package meets the packaging guidelines: with the possible exception of the
RPM_OPT_FLAGS issue noted above
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license
[+] license field matches the actual license
[=] license file is included in %doc: the license file actually included is the
GPL v2 license.  See if upstream will update that to the GPL v3 license text.
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64)
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[N] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[=] query upstream for license text: see above
[N] description and summary contains available translations
[+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386
[+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64
[=] package functions as described: did not test
[+] sane scriptlets
[N] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts

-- 
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.