Bug 513420

One small sugggestion, no need to mention the language in the apps' Summary, ie, 
Summary: Media Player
should be sufficient.

Agreed, but Media Player is a bit generic. How about "Media Player based on GStreamer" then?

I personally don't believe gst should be mentioned either, ie, describe the app, what it does, what distinguishes it without resorting to jargon or mentioning technical details like toolkits or media engines.  Just my $0.02

Lightweight Media Player

And you can remove the mention of "Totem" (wrongly capitalised) in the summary as well, seeing that the author's description is factually wrong.

(In reply to comment #5)
> And you can remove the mention of "Totem" (wrongly capitalised) in the summary
> as well, 

Ok, I will remove totem, but where is it capitalized?

> seeing that the author's description is factually wrong.

Erm, sorry, I don't understand. What's wrong with it?

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > And you can remove the mention of "Totem" (wrongly capitalised) in the summary
> > as well, 
> 
> Ok, I will remove totem, but where is it capitalized?

It's not, which is why it's wrong.

> > seeing that the author's description is factually wrong.
> 
> Erm, sorry, I don't understand. What's wrong with it?  

"similar to totem but without any GNOME dependencies"? It's not anything like Totem in terms of features, and the only somewhat GNOME-y dependency is GConf.

(In reply to comment #7)
> It's not, which is why it's wrong.

I see. I don't want to argue, but both the tarball and the package are not capitalized ether.

> It's not anything like Totem in terms of features, 

Agreed

> and the only somewhat GNOME-y dependency is GConf.

Please don't forget gnome-themes (why?) and control-center and evolution-data server (through totem-pl-parser) plus all their deps. Totem's dependency chain is rather long, at least in Fedora.

I will change summary and description as soon as somebody picks up this review.

P.S.: Bastien, would you mind replying to bug 488558, which is in NEEDINFO for 6 more than 6 weeks now? TIA!

(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > It's not, which is why it's wrong.
> 
> I see. I don't want to argue, but both the tarball and the package are not
> capitalized ether.

No, and that's expected.

> > It's not anything like Totem in terms of features, 
> 
> Agreed
> 
> > and the only somewhat GNOME-y dependency is GConf.
> 
> Please don't forget gnome-themes (why?)

Because nobody bothered to file a bug, should really be gnome-icon-theme. Fixed in rawhide.

> and control-center

It doesn't.

>  and evolution-data
> server (through totem-pl-parser)

It doesn't either.

> plus all their deps. Totem's dependency chain
> is rather long, at least in Fedora.
> 
> I will change summary and description as soon as somebody picks up this review.
> 
> P.S.: Bastien, would you mind replying to bug 488558, which is in NEEDINFO for
> 6 more than 6 weeks now? TIA!  

Answered there.

I'll take this for review.

Setting the fedora-review flag as that seems to have been overlooked.

An initial review. The summary and description still need to be fixed. Other than that there's only a couple of small bits.

- rpmlint output

rpmlint whaawmp-0.2.12.1-1.fc11.src.rpm whaawmp-0.2.12.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
whaawmp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/whaawmp/whaawmp.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
whaawmp.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/whaawmp/thumbnailer.py 0644 /usr/bin/env
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.

+ 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

+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  259b61cfa87bbba54dcd9579a815a421  whaawmp-0.2.12.1.tar.bz2
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1653577
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
+ %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ Package perserves timestamps on install
+ %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
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
+ packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
- packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
  I'm not sure why both packages need to own this?
  # We need to own this dir although it's already owned by Thunar
  %dir %{_datadir}/thumbnailers/
+ %install must start with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a 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/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin

Reworked summary and description. Rpmlint is silent.

http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/whaawmp.spec
http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc12.src.rpm

Ping.

All looks OK. Still don't see why the package needs to own the below directory. If its needed by more than one package surely it should be added to one of the filesystem packages.

# We need to own this dir although it's already owned by Thunar
%dir %{_datadir}/thumbnailers/

APPROVED.

(In reply to comment #15)
> If its needed by more than one package surely it should be added to one of the
> filesystem packages.

Agreed, but so long, we need to own it.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: whaawmp
Short Description: Lightweight Media Player
Owners: cwickert
Branches: F-10 F-11 F-12
InitialCC:

cvs done.

whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc12

whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc11

whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc10

whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update whaawmp'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10506

whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update whaawmp'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-10535

closing as its in F-12/rawhide

whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

whaawmp-0.2.12.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.