Bug 448250

MUST Items: 

xx - rpmlint is unclean on SRPM
    + [rishi@ginger SRPMS]$ rpmlint nautilus-sound-converter-0.5.0-1.fc9.src.rpm 
      nautilus-sound-converter.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes
nautilus-flac-converter
      nautilus-sound-converter.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces:
line 1, tab: line 13)
      [rishi@ginger SRPMS]$ 

xx - does not follow Naming Guidelines
    + According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages
there should be a versioned Obsoletes, which would also take care of one of the
rpmlint warnings.

OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec

OK - package meets Packaging Guidelines
    + To preserve timestamps you could consider using:
      make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
    + Why not include the AUTHORS, ChangeLog and TODO in %doc?

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 is 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 sonames
OK - -devel is not needed
OK - libtool archives removed in the spec
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
OK - package functions as expected
OK - scriptlets are not needed
OK - subpackages are not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies

Spec URL: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nautilus-sound-converter.spec
SRPM URL:
http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nautilus-sound-converter-0.5.0-2.fc9.src.rpm
Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=638449

* Sat May 24 2008 Brian Pepple <bpepple> - 0.5.0-2
- Fix obsoletes.

+ There remains an issue with mixed use of spaces and tabs:
[rishi@ginger SRPMS]$ rpmlint nautilus-sound-converter-0.5.0-2.fc9.src.rpm 
nautilus-sound-converter.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1,
tab: line 24)
[rishi@ginger SRPMS]$ 

+ Also are these versioned BuildRequires really needed? Even F-7 seems to have
versions newer than these.
BuildRequires:  nautilus-devel >= 2.12.0
BuildRequires:  gstreamer-devel >= 0.10.3

According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Requires :
"... if the lowest possible requirement is so old that nobody has a version
older than that installed on any target distribution release, there's no need to
include the version in the dependency at all. In that case we know the available
software is new enough. ... As a rule of thumb, if the version is not required,
don't add it just for fun."

(In reply to comment #3)
> + There remains an issue with mixed use of spaces and tabs:
> [rishi@ginger SRPMS]$ rpmlint nautilus-sound-converter-0.5.0-2.fc9.src.rpm 
> nautilus-sound-converter.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1,
> tab: line 24)

Is this *really* a blocker?  I could care less about mixing space & tabs.
 
> + Also are these versioned BuildRequires really needed? Even F-7 seems to have
> versions newer than these.
> BuildRequires:  nautilus-devel >= 2.12.0
> BuildRequires:  gstreamer-devel >= 0.10.3

And again I ask is this really a blocker for not approving a package?

(In reply to comment #4)

> Is this *really* a blocker?  I could care less about mixing space & tabs.
> [...]
> And again I ask is this really a blocker for not approving a package?

Although none of them are blockers, they are too trivial to be not fixed. :-) In
any case, I leave it to your discretion.

+---------------------------------+
| This package is APPROVED by me. |
+---------------------------------+

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: nautilus-sound-converter
Short Description: Nautilus extension to convert audio files
Owners: bpepple
Branches:
InitialCC: 
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done.

Debarshi, thanks for the review.

built for devel.