Bug 470914

> License:        LGPLv2+

Web page says "Licensed under the GPL v2 or later for now".
File COPYING contains the GPL v2.
Only a few source files contain a LGPL header.
This suggests the project is:

 => License: GPLv2+


> Summary: An LV2 host library

Suggest dropping the "An ".


> %description    devel
> slv2-devel contains the headers and development libraries for slv2.

Suggest
"This package contains the headers and development libraries for SLV2."
for consistency and to avoid repeating the pkg name.


> %files
> %doc AUTHORS COPYING README
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)

%defattr ought to be moved one line up.


> %{_libdir}/*.a

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries


* The slv2.pc pkg-config file adds a redundant -L/usr/lib -lrdf from redland.pc


* 0.6.2 is available (still marked unstable, though)


* Run-time warning (in src/world.c) about Redland librdf not being new enough:

  $ lv2_list 
  Warning: Unable to create "trees" RDF storage.
  Performance can be improved by upgrading librdf.


* src/world.c contains hardcoded /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib paths
also on 64-bit platforms!


* The only real blockers:
  * licence
  * static lib
  * hardcoded lib paths

Thanks for taking the time to review this.

(In reply to comment #1)
> > License:        LGPLv2+
> 
> Web page says "Licensed under the GPL v2 or later for now".
> File COPYING contains the GPL v2.
> Only a few source files contain a LGPL header.
> This suggests the project is:
> 
>  => License: GPLv2+


Fixed.

> 
> 
> > Summary: An LV2 host library
> 
> Suggest dropping the "An ".
> 

Fixed.

> 
> > %description    devel
> > slv2-devel contains the headers and development libraries for slv2.
> 
> Suggest
> "This package contains the headers and development libraries for SLV2."
> for consistency and to avoid repeating the pkg name.
> 

Fixed.

> 
> > %files
> > %doc AUTHORS COPYING README
> > %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> 
> %defattr ought to be moved one line up.
> 

Fixed.


> 
> > %{_libdir}/*.a
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries
> 
> 

Fixed.


> * The slv2.pc pkg-config file adds a redundant -L/usr/lib -lrdf from redland.pc
> 

Not fixed yet.


> 
> * 0.6.2 is available (still marked unstable, though)
> 

I haven't updated version.


> 
> * Run-time warning (in src/world.c) about Redland librdf not being new enough:
> 
>   $ lv2_list 
>   Warning: Unable to create "trees" RDF storage.
>   Performance can be improved by upgrading librdf.
> 

I'll look at librdf.


> 
> * src/world.c contains hardcoded /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib paths
> also on 64-bit platforms!
> 

Fixed with perl in %prep section.


> 
> * The only real blockers:
>   * licence
>   * static lib
>   * hardcoded lib paths


Thanks.  New versions here:
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/Fedora/slv2.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/Fedora/slv2-0.6.0-2.fc10.src.rpm

> perl in %prep section.

Works with this release, but is fragile. It bears the risk of replacing /usr/lib64 with /usr/lib6464 in future upgrades, for example. You could avoid that by handling the slash after /usr/lib and /usr/local appropriately in the match and replacement (if not using a more complex sed/perl expr).

Typically, a patch (and optionally a guard in %prep) is safer.



* slv2-devel is missing

  Requires: lv2core-devel redland-devel

for include statements in lv2_ui.h and world.h
That's easy to add in pkg cvs, though.


* APPROVED

ping? no cvs request is made for the last 2 months. Is there a problem? Can I co-maintain this package?

A response needs to be made according to [1] within a week. Otherwise, the bug needs to be closed and a new one will be opened.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews

All http://people.redhat.com/green URLs give 404 Not Found

Please backport this patch from the upstream trunk:
   http://dev.drobilla.net/changeset/1948
from
   http://dev.drobilla.net/ticket/341

The compilation of slv2 does not fail without it but some plugins which need slv2 as a dependency need this patch, otherwise they won't compile.

Let's wait a couple days more. We'll close the bug if we don't get any response and then I'll open a new one.

Michael, would you like to re-review this package in case we don't get a reply? And could you attach or email me the SPEC file if you still have it in your archives? Thanks!

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/mirror/fedora/linux/planetccrma/10/SRPMS/slv2-0.6.2-1.fc10.ccrma.src.rpm

Closing the bug. 

I opened a new one at bug 492398.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 491421 ***

Sorry put the wrong number. The correct one is this one:

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 492398 ***