Bug 199021

Looks like there's the dreaded rpath problem:
  E: zynaddsubfx binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/controller ['/usr/lib64']
  E: zynaddsubfx binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/zynaddsubfx ['/usr/lib64']
  E: zynaddsubfx binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/spliter ['/usr/lib64']

Unfortunately I can't figure out where it's coming from.

Also, the recommended Fedora compilation flags don't seem to be used at all;
everything seems to be compiled with -O6.  Unless I'm missing the flags that are
coming out of the various -config programs.

Thanks.  I had a quick look and I can fix these tonight.

(In reply to comment #1)
> Looks like there's the dreaded rpath problem:
>   E: zynaddsubfx binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/controller ['/usr/lib64']
>   E: zynaddsubfx binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/zynaddsubfx ['/usr/lib64']
>   E: zynaddsubfx binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/spliter ['/usr/lib64']
> 
> Unfortunately I can't figure out where it's coming from.

This was a bug in "fltk-config --ldflags" output.
 
> Also, the recommended Fedora compilation flags don't seem to be used at all;
> everything seems to be compiled with -O6.  

Fixed.  I found a "fltk-config --cflags" output as well.  Two bugs were filed
against fltk.

Updated bits here:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~green/FE/FC5/zynaddsubfx.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~green/FE/FC5/zynaddsubfx-2.2.1-6.src.rpm

Thanks.

Cool, looks good now and builds fine; rpmlint is silent.

I note that you don't use a dist tag.  It's not an absolute requirement but it
does simplify your maintenance overhead a bit because it allows you to use the
same spec for multiple distro releases.  I just want to make sure you intended
to leave it out.

The %description leaves a bit to be desired in the grammar department, which is
understandable given that the author is not a native speaker.  Plus "that you'll
boost to an amazing universe of sounds" does put a smile on my face.  I'm not
really sure what to suggest; how about just:

ZynAddSubFX is an open source software synthesizer capable of making a
countless number of instrument sounds.

or somesuch.

I'm not sure that anything you depend on owns /usr/share/icons or the
directories under it.  (At least in FC5.)

Your scriptlets are slightly different from those in 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets:
You don't call touch with --no-create; you don't use "||:" on the touch line, 
and you use /usr/bin instead of %{_bindir}.
I'm not sure what difference the first two make in practise.  The latter is a
stylistic issue; the macro is generally preferred over hardcoded paths, but the
suggested scriptlets are not consistent in this.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   fca8560e37d799bd20d17e22b11674d6  ZynAddSubFX-2.2.1.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* Compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   zynaddsubfx = 2.2.1-6
  =
   /bin/sh
   desktop-file-utils
   fltk >= 1.1.3
   jack-audio-connection-kit >= 0.101.1
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libXext.so.6()(64bit)
   libXft.so.2()(64bit)
   libXrender.so.1()(64bit)
   libasound.so.2()(64bit)
   libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit)
   libfftw3.so.3()(64bit)
   libfltk.so.1.1()(64bit)
   libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
   libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
   libjack.so.0()(64bit)
   liblash.so.2()(64bit)
   libmxml.so.1()(64bit)
   libuuid.so.1()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
   mxml >= 2.2
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
X owns the directories it creates. (/usr/share/icons)
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
? scriptlets present; differ from the suggested ones.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* GUI app; desktop file installed properly.  No MIME types defined, so no need
to update the desktop database.

(In reply to comment #4)
> Cool, looks good now and builds fine; rpmlint is silent.

Sorry for the long delay.

I've cleaned up everything you mentioned, with one exception:

> I'm not sure that anything you depend on owns /usr/share/icons or the
> directories under it.  (At least in FC5.)

Is this really a problem?  If so, why?  And what should I do about it?

Thanks!

Updated bits here:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~green/FE/FC5/zynaddsubfx.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~green/FE/FC5/zynaddsubfx-2.2.1-7.src.rpm

AG

Somehow I managed to miss your reply.  Sorry about that; too much bugzilla mail,
I guess.

About the unowned directory: here is the set of packages in FC5 (core+extras)
which own /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps:

HelixPlayer-1:1.0.6-1.2.2.i386
hicolor-icon-theme-0:0.9-2.noarch
sound-juicer-0:2.14.4-1.fc5.1.i386
gdm-1:2.14.9-1.i386
fedora-logos-0:1.1.42-1.fc5.1.noarch
k3b-0:0.12.15-0.FC5.1.i386
openoffice.org-core-1:2.0.2-5.17.2.i386
rssowl-0:1.2.1-1.fc5.i386
pikdev-0:0.9.1-1.fc5.i386
banshee-0:0.10.8-1.i386
rssowl-0:1.2.1-2.fc5.i386
banshee-0:0.10.9-1..fc5.i386
koffice-core-0:1.5.1-1.fc5.i386
taskjuggler-0:2.2.0-1.fc5.i386
kdirstat-0:2.5.3-3.fc5.i386
amarok-0:1.4.1-2.fc5.i386
amarok-0:1.4.1-3.fc5.i386
koffice-core-0:1.5.2-1.fc5.i386
pikdev-0:0.9.1-2.fc5.i386
sound-juicer-0:2.14.4-1.fc5.1.i386
fedora-logos-0:1.1.42-1.fc5.1.noarch
gdm-1:2.14.9-1.i386
k3b-0:0.12.15-0.FC5.1.i386
openoffice.org-core-1:2.0.2-5.16.2.i386
openoffice.org-core-1:2.0.2-5.17.2.i386

Does this package depend, directly or indirectly, on any of those?  It doesn't
look like it to me.  And thus you could install this package and its
dependencies and /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps would be unowned, and
that's problematic according to the guidelines.

I honestly don't know what the proper solution is.  Many packages own those
directories, but I guess it might also be reasonable to depend on
hicolor-icon-theme.

Everything else looks good.

(In reply to comment #6)
> I honestly don't know what the proper solution is.  Many packages own those
> directories, but I guess it might also be reasonable to depend on
> hicolor-icon-theme.

Done.

Updated bits here:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~green/FE/FC5/zynaddsubfx.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~green/FE/FC5/zynaddsubfx-2.2.1-8.src.rpm

OK, this looks good.  The /usr/share/icons/hicolor/* directories are owned by a
dependency, and /usr/share/pixmaps is owned by filesystem so there's no problem
there.  That was the last of the issues I could see.

Do note that your last change caused this rpmlint warning to pop up:

W: zynaddsubfx mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs

because you indented the one line you added with a tab instead of spaces as in
the rest of the specfile.  This is just rpmlint being picky and is not a blocker.

APPROVED

Thanks.