Bug 445105

I'd like to note that this is the first package that I'm submitting to Fedora. I
am looking for a sponsor to get started with packaging.

About the package: The resulting binary package is quite simple, since it only
ships the executable binary, a .desktop file and an icon.

For 0.90.80-1:

* SourceURL
  - I recommend to use %{name} and %{version}. With this, you won't
    have to fix the SourceURL when a new version is released.

* Configure option
  - Would you explain why you want to add --without-jack?
    (jack-audio-connection-kit-devel is in Fedora)

* Timestamps
  - When using "install" or "cp" commands, add "-p" option to
    keep timestamps on installed files.

* Macros
  - Use macros properly. /usr/share should be %{_datadir}.

* rpmlint issue
------------------------------------------------------------
milkytracker-debuginfo.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/milkytracker-0.90.80/src/tracker/TitlePageManager.h
milkytracker-debuginfo.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/milkytracker-0.90.80/src/ppui/DialogFileSelector.h
(and many lines)
------------------------------------------------------------
  Summary
  - The permissions of the source code files are incorrect, which
    creates lots of debuginfo related rpmlints. Fix this by
------------------------------------------------------------
%prep
%setup -q
find . -name \*.cpp -or -name \*.h | xargs chmod 0644
------------------------------------------------------------
    for example.

Then as this is a NEEDSPONSOR ticket:
-------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Before being sponsored:

This package will be accepted with another few work. 
But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) 
must sponsor you.

Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other 
submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. 
For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) 
are required to "show that you have an understanding 
of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described
on :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored

Usually there are two ways to show this.
A. submit other review requests with enough quality.
B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request
   (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do
   a formal review)

When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other 
person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report 
so that I can check your comments or review request.

Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to
review can be checked on:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html
(NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review")


Review guidelines are described mainly on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
------------------------------------------------------------

I've also been notified that the source tarball includes local copies of zlib
and zziplib in the src/compression directory. The author of the software tells
he has modified the libraries to compile cleanly with C++ compilers.

The modifications done to the local zlib aren't very significant, and I could
link against the Fedora-supplied zlib by modifying two Makefile.am files
slightly. The zziplib copy seems more complicated.

I'm now taking care of the issues pointed by Mamoru Tasaka, and also trying to
figure out what to do to the zziplib copy.

ping?

New relase:

* Mon May 26 2008 Joonas Sarajärvi <muepsj> - 0.90.80-2
- Set Source0 to use macros for easier updating.
- Removed the --without-jack configuration option.
- Added -p to the cp command to preserve the timestamp.
- Replaced /usr/share with a macro.
- Added a line to prep to set correct permissions for source files extracted
from the tarball.
- Modified a Makefile.am to not compile the included static zlib library.

Sorry for the delay, have been traveling a bit lately.

I am still a bit unsure about what to do with the libs included in the upstream
tarball. The main developer of MilkyTracker wants to have them there for
portability purposes. The included Zlib isn't compiled in this release, but the
zziplib library in Milkytracker seems quite modified to me, and I haven't got MT
to build with Fedora-provided zziplib.

Oh, forgot to add the links to the new release:

Spec URL: http://www.ee.oulu.fi/~muep/rpms/milky/milkytracker.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.ee.oulu.fi/~muep/rpms/milky/milkytracker-0.90.80-2.fc9.src.rpm

Sorry for delay...

(In reply to comment #5)
> * Mon May 26 2008 Joonas Sarajärvi <muepsj> - 0.90.80-2
> - Modified a Makefile.am to not compile the included static zlib library.
> The included Zlib isn't compiled in this release, 

Well, I reviewed your patch, however in fact 
patching against Makefile.am does not do anything, because
configure created Makefile from Makefile.in, not from Makefile.am
and Makefile.in is not automatically regenerated from Makefile.am.

> but the
> zziplib library in Milkytracker seems quite modified to me, 
> and I haven't got MT
> to build with Fedora-provided zziplib.

Would you check the following?
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=636231
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/scratch/mtasaka/task_636231/

I applied a patch to use system-wide zziplib. milkytracter does not use zlib
directly.


Now I will wait for your another review request submit or pre-review
of other person's review request.

In the case that the above scratch build is removed from koji server,
I uploaded the proposal srpm on the following:

http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/milkytracker/milkytracker.spec
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/milkytracker/milkytracker-0.90.80-3.fc9.src.rpm

ping?

I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly sure about what to check the new release for. 

The new release works for me and I understand the changes in
milkytracker-0.90.80-use-system-library.patch mostly, but I certainly couldn't
have done them myself.

Did you actually modify the configure script yourself, or was it regenerated
after the modifications to configure.in?

If you feel I should read some stuff, I'd like some pointers :-)

(In reply to comment #10)
> Did you actually modify the configure script yourself, or was it regenerated
> after the modifications to configure.in?

I re-generated configure from modified configure.in.
Well, as I said in comment 2, I am now waiting for your another review
request or your pre-review of other person's review request.

ping?

Added an informal review here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452486

Well, would you do a pre-review for packages which all BuildRequires
are already available on Fedora? The review request you commented
depends on another package which does not build on rawhide for now
so I cannot check if your pre-review is proper.

ping?

Reviewed a simple font package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454171

Sorry for the delay, had a bit of trouble finding something suitable for review,
though maybe I should just be more courageous on trying some more difficult
packages.

Would it also help to post another package here besides milkytracker? I would be
interested to also get crrcsim ( http://crrcsim.sourceforge.net/ ) into Fedora,
and I have already packaged it a few times for myself.

Well, okay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
      This package (milkytracker) is APPROVED by me
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please follow the procedure written on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
from "Get a Fedora Account".
At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies
that you need a sponsor. At the stage, please also write on
this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and
your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you.

If you want to import this package into Fedora 8/9, you also have
to look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT
(after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system).

If you have questions, please ask me.

Now I am sponsoring you. Please follow "Join" wiki again.

Thanks for your patience, Mamoru Tasaka :-)

Yes, I am requesting sponsorship, if this note is still necessary. 

I am currently a bit overwhelmed by the new pieces of infrastructure, but I
guess it'll help after looking at them for a while.

Since Milkyrtacker works nicely on both Fedora 8 and Fedora 9, I think it would
be nice to attemt getting it available there.

Thank you for your assistance, hope to get to be a bit more active in the future...

I am now at the Add Package to CVS and Set Owner stage, and going through this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure

Just want to verify that I should use this bug report as the place to post my
CVS administration request. Did I get it right?

Yes. At least it worked for me :-)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432080

(In reply to comment #20)
> Just want to verify that I should use this bug report as the place to post my
> CVS administration request. Did I get it right?

Yes. Write CVS request on this bug.

OK, I'll do that probably later today, after work.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: milkytracker
Short Description: Module tracker software for creating music
Owners: muep
Branches: F-8 F-9
InitialCC:
Cvsextras Commits: Yes

Oops. forgot to set the fedora-cvs flag. Setting it now.

cvs done.