Bug 478941

Taking for review.

- rpmlint output

celt-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

Just move (or duplicate) the README and TODO files into the
-devel subpackage.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
? license matches the actual package license

There's a number of source files (both *.c and *.h) that
don't contain explicit license information.  Are we sure
about the origin of these files?

+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  dd7cda953e4df448083b69af9afc15e1 401008
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  x86_64
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1047518
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
+ binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
+ header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
+ packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ libfoo.so must go in -devel
+ -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

? if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1047518
+ the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
+ pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin

------

So there's that %doc thing to fix, and can you query upstream
about the libcelt/*.[ch] files which don't have license information
to find out who wrote them and/or where they came from.

*** Bug 479750 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Any updates on this, Peter?

I've queried upstream about the license on the files. Can someone provide me a list of know files? I've had a quick look but not had enough time to look at all files.

Look at the files libcelt/*[ch] and query the ones
which don't have license information in them.

I've got a response from the celt maintainer here:
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/celt-dev/2009-February/000063.html

He's confirmed the license on all the files is BSD and will update them in the repo. Is there anything else outstanding for this review?

OK, this is APPROVED.

Before committing can you make two changes to the spec file:
 (1) Put README into %doc in the -devel subpackage.
 (2) Put a comment in the spec file with the link in comment 7.

Thanks Richard,

Will update both of those before commit.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: celt
Short Description: An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication 
Owners: pbrobinson xiphmont
Branches: F-10 F-9 EL-4 EL-5
InitialCC:

cvs done.

Closing. In rawhide and build for F-9 and F-10