[Bug 760270] Review Request: lv2-ams-plugins - LV2 port of the Alsa Modular Synth modules

[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=760270

--- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2012-01-06 12:45:57 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Thanks for the review! I've come across this before - there is no Fedora
> packaging policy regarding waf (for good reason). waf upstream actually
> recommends bundling within the package - it was never designed to be like
> autotools. Backwards compatibility has never been a design requirement of waf.

Ok, understood.

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is almost silent

work ~/temp: rpmlint *
lv2-avw-plugins.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
lv2-avw-plugins.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/lv2-avw-plugins-0.0.5/COPYING

^^^ You should notice upstream about that but this is not a blocker. Also there
is another licensing issue (see below).

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
work ~/temp: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.

- The package looks like licensed with a Fedora approved license but it's
unclear under which one exactly. The sources doesn't contain any traces of
licensing headers, the attached COPYING contains GPLv2 and website claims that
the software is licensed under GPLv3. Please ask upstream developer(s) about
the exact licensing status of this software.

0 The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc. Well this is useless until previous issue is unresolved.

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

work ~/temp: sha256sum avw.lv2.0.0.5.tar.gz*
ae43e9b9ae8d7043b03d372e2ba4a54968c699309ea4a59f75a65313cd866850 
avw.lv2.0.0.5.tar.gz
ae43e9b9ae8d7043b03d372e2ba4a54968c699309ea4a59f75a65313cd866850 
avw.lv2.0.0.5.tar.gz.1
work ~/temp: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See Koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+/- The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries (except waf, which
is used only for building). Honestly I advise you try to build it with a
system-wide copy.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application. Well, not a stand-alone GUI app. It doesn lonks
against graphical libraries but it seems that it isn't intended to run from a
user's desktop.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


Almost finished.
Please,

* Clarify licensing.
* Try to build it with system-wide waf.

And I will finish this review.

-- 
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.