Bug 564425

Summary: Review Request: sugar-tamtam - A suite of four music and sound related activities
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Sebastian Dziallas <sebastian>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Christoph Wickert <cwickert>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: cwickert, fedora-package-review, notting
Target Milestone: ---Flags: cwickert: fedora‑review+
tibbs: fedora‑cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: sugar-tamtam-0-0.3.20100201git.fc13 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-02-28 20:38:07 EST Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 558617    

Description Sebastian Dziallas 2010-02-12 12:31:29 EST
Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-tamtam.spec
SRPM URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-tamtam-0-0.1.20100201git.fc12.src.rpm

Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1980419
Description: This is another activity from the Sugar packaging effort.
Comment 1 Christoph Wickert 2010-02-24 20:53:06 EST
FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/sugar-tamtam-*
sugar-tamtam.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Csound -> Sound, C sound, Compound
sugar-tamtam.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-tamtam.src: W: invalid-url Source0: sugar-tamtam-0-20100201.tar.bz2
sugar-tamtam.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Csound -> Sound, C sound, Compound
sugar-tamtam.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-tamtam.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/tamtam/Sounds/templebell.orig
sugar-tamtam.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/tamtam/Sounds/sarangi.orig
sugar-tamtam.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/tamtam/Sounds/drum6kit.orig
sugar-tamtam-edit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US organise -> organist, organism, organize
sugar-tamtam-edit.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-tamtam-edit.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/sugar/activities/TamTamEdit.activity/common /usr/share/tamtam
sugar-tamtam-jam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polyphonically -> poly phonically, poly-phonically, polyphonic ally
sugar-tamtam-jam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US beatbox -> beat box, beat-box, Beatrix
sugar-tamtam-jam.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rythms -> rhythms, rhythm, algorithms
sugar-tamtam-jam.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-tamtam-jam.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/sugar/activities/TamTamJam.activity/common /usr/share/tamtam
sugar-tamtam-mini.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-tamtam-mini.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/sugar/activities/TamTamMini.activity/common /usr/share/tamtam
sugar-tamtam-synthlab.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US synthesiser -> synthesizer, synthesis er, synthesis-er
sugar-tamtam-synthlab.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modelled -> modeled, model led, model-led
sugar-tamtam-synthlab.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
sugar-tamtam-synthlab.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/sugar/activities/TamTamSynthLab.activity/common /usr/share/tamtam
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 19 warnings.

The following warnings/errors can be ignored: non-standard-group, spelling-error for csound, dangling-symlink (due to the subpackages). This leaves two typos and backup-file-in-package. Are the *.orig files needed?

OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name}
OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines
OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2+ and GPLv3+)
OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license
OK - MUST: license file included in %doc
OK - MUST: spec is in American English
OK - MUST: spec is legible
N/A - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 (git snapshot)
OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 (noarch)
N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch.
OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang
N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review.
OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates
OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...)
OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: consistently uses macros
OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content
N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application
N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package
N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package
N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package.
N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8


SHOULD Items:
OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file.
N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK - SHOULD: builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: functions as described.
N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg
N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.


Other items:
OK - latest stable version
OK - SourceURL valid
OK - Compiler flags ok
OK - Debuginfo complete


Issues:
- The sugar-tamtam package should be called sugar-tamtam-common because it is not a standalone package. The srpm and spec will still be called sugar-tamtam.

- Due to python3 the python guidelines have changed recently. Please update the macro definitions acording to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#Macros

- You can drop python_sitelib because it is not needed here.

- make is not verbose so compiler flags cannot be verified.

- add -p to preserve timestamps when using cp -r 

- the command to install the package should be
%{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
instead of
python ./setup.py install --prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_prefix}

- Typos: organise -> organize, synthesiser -> synthesizer

- backup-file-in-package: Are these files needed?
Comment 2 Sebastian Dziallas 2010-02-27 17:07:17 EST
(In reply to comment #1)

I uploaded a new version.

Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-tamtam.spec
SRPM URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/sugar-tamtam-0-0.2.20100201git.fc12.src.rpm

> Issues:
> - The sugar-tamtam package should be called sugar-tamtam-common because it is
> not a standalone package. The srpm and spec will still be called sugar-tamtam.

I moved the common files into a common package. Rpmlint complains now about the main package containing no binary, though.

> - Due to python3 the python guidelines have changed recently. Please update the
> macro definitions acording to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#Macros
> 
> - You can drop python_sitelib because it is not needed here.

Both done!

> - make is not verbose so compiler flags cannot be verified.

I added the V=1 parameter, so that should be good, too.

> - add -p to preserve timestamps when using cp -r 

Done.

> - the command to install the package should be
> %{__python} setup.py install -O1 --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> instead of
> python ./setup.py install --prefix=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_prefix}

We discussed this on IRC; setup.py seems to have issues with the other invocation.
 
> - Typos: organise -> organize, synthesiser -> synthesizer

Fixed these and a few other typos.

> - backup-file-in-package: Are these files needed?    

I don't think so and have removed them.
Comment 3 Christoph Wickert 2010-02-27 17:41:22 EST
(In reply to comment #2)
> I moved the common files into a common package. Rpmlint complains now about the
> main package containing no binary, though.

This is ok, the lib in %{python_sitearch}/tamtam *is* binary.

APPROVED
Comment 4 Sebastian Dziallas 2010-02-27 18:03:45 EST
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: sugar-tamtam
Short Description: A suite of four music and sound related activities
Owners: sdz
Branches: F-13 F-12 F-11
Comment 5 Sebastian Dziallas 2010-02-27 18:04:26 EST
Thanks for the review! I'll import an updated version that doesn't build the - empty - base package, as discussed on IRC.
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2010-02-28 17:32:32 EST
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2010-02-28 18:04:16 EST
sugar-tamtam-0-0.3.20100201git.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sugar-tamtam-0-0.3.20100201git.fc13
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2010-02-28 20:38:02 EST
sugar-tamtam-0-0.3.20100201git.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.