Bug 251950
| Summary: | Review Request: moodbar - Identifies the "mood" of your music files | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Aurelien Bompard <gauret> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Debarshi Ray <debarshir> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | Flags: | debarshir:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-01-26 19:51:28 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Aurelien Bompard
2007-08-13 16:29:24 UTC
Hmm, actually amarok does not use it to create playlists, but to show a visual representation of what happens in the song. See the home page for more info. I've updated the description. MUST Items:
OK - rpmlint is clean on SRPM, RPM and installed package
xx - follows Package Naming Guidelines
+ although the Debian package is named 'moodbar', PLD-Linux, OpenSUSE and
FreeBSD call it 'gstreamer-plugins-moodbar'; in fact the README says Moodbar is
the algorithm and the package contains a GStreamer plugin and an application --
what do you think?
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec
xx - package meets Packaging Guidelines
+ consider using %{version} in Source0 to avoid bumping it every time
+ remove the versioned BuildRequires since both F-7 and F-8 have
gstreamer-devel >= 0.10
+ consider using '%configure --disable-static' to avoid building the static
library
+ consider using 'INSTALL="%{__install} -p"' as:
make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines
OK - License field meets actual license
OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources
OK - package builds successfully
OK - ExcludeArch not needed
OK - build dependencies correctly listed
OK - no locales
OK - no shared libraries in any of the dynamic linker's default paths
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - file and directory ownership
OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
OK - %clean present
OK - macros used consistently
OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - no header files
OK - no static libraries
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no library files with a suffix
OK - -devel not needed
OK - libtool archives deleted
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8
SHOULD Items:
OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully
OK - package builds on all supported architectures
xx - package functions as expected
+ moodbar crashes -- Debian package has a patch to fix incorrect interaction
with GLib threading system
OK - scriptlets not needed
OK - subpackages not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies
Here is a patch to fix some of these issues:
http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/moodbar.spec.patch
> xx - follows Package Naming Guidelines > + although the Debian package is named 'moodbar', PLD-Linux, OpenSUSE and > FreeBSD call it 'gstreamer-plugins-moodbar'; in fact the README says Moodbar is > the algorithm and the package contains a GStreamer plugin and an application -- > what do you think? Our guideline is "follow the tarball's name", so I'd rather go with "moodbar". > xx - package meets Packaging Guidelines > + consider using %{version} in Source0 to avoid bumping it every time Okay, why not. > + remove the versioned BuildRequires since both F-7 and F-8 have > gstreamer-devel >= 0.10 I'd rather keep it, in case someone wants to rebuild it on an older distribution, or in a spinoff of Fedora which would have and older gstreamer. > + consider using '%configure --disable-static' to avoid building the static > library Done. > + consider using 'INSTALL="%{__install} -p"' as: > make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT Done. > xx - package functions as expected > + moodbar crashes -- Debian package has a patch to fix incorrect interaction > with GLib threading system Added. Thanks a lot for you review ! http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/moodbar/moodbar-0.1.2-2.fc8.src.rpm >> xx - follows Package Naming Guidelines >> + although the Debian package is named 'moodbar', PLD-Linux, OpenSUSE and >> FreeBSD call it 'gstreamer-plugins-moodbar'; in fact the README says Moodbar is >> the algorithm and the package contains a GStreamer plugin and an application -- >> what do you think? > Our guideline is "follow the tarball's name", so I'd rather go with "moodbar". Umm... We have gstreamer-plugins-farsight, farsight and farsight-devel in Fedora. However they are distributed as separate plugins. Would it make sense to split this into moodbar and gstreamer-plugins-moodbar, or you consider it as an overkill? >> + remove the versioned BuildRequires since both F-7 and F-8 have >> gstreamer-devel >= 0.10 > I'd rather keep it, in case someone wants to rebuild it on an older > distribution, or in a spinoff of Fedora which would have and older gstreamer. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28Packaging%29#Requires says: "As a rule of thumb, if the version is not required, don't add it just for fun." But that might be a suggestion and not a requirement. I will leave this to your judgement. > Umm... We have gstreamer-plugins-farsight, farsight and farsight-devel in > Fedora. However they are distributed as separate plugins. Would it make sense to > split this into moodbar and gstreamer-plugins-moodbar, or you consider it as an > overkill? I'd say it's overkill for such a small plugin. I'd rather KISS when possible. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines?highlight=%28Packaging%29#Requires > says: "As a rule of thumb, if the version is not required, don't add it just for > fun." But that might be a suggestion and not a requirement. I will leave this to > your judgement. Yeah, that makes sense too. I've removed it. http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/moodbar/moodbar-0.1.2-3.fc8.src.rpm +---------------------------------+ | This package is APPROVED by me. | +---------------------------------+ New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: moodbar Short Description: Identifies the mood of your music files Owners: abompard Branches: F-7 F-8 Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. moodbar-0.1.2-3.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. moodbar-0.1.2-3.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. I think this should be now closed as "NEXTRELEASE". Is there any outstanding issue regarding this? If not, then this should be closed as "NEXTRELEASE". Thanks |