Bug 728737

Sorry, the correct SRPM link should be:
SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/libinstpatch-1.0.0-2.20110806svn386.fc15.src.rpm

Hi Orcan,

The base package requirement in the subpackages needs to be in the format
"%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}"
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package).


Not a blocker but noted use of old FSF address. Most source headers are OK.

bsjones@f15laptop ~$rpmlint /home/rawhide/rpmbuild/SRPMS/libinstpatch*.rpm
libinstpatch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wavetable -> wave table, wave-table, vegetable
libinstpatch.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libinstpatch-1.0.0-svn386.tar.bz2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

bsjones@f15laptop ~$rpmlint /home/rawhide/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/libinstpatch*.rpm
libinstpatch.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wavetable -> wave table, wave-table, vegetable
libinstpatch-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libinstpatch-1.0/libinstpatch/version.h
libinstpatch-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libinstpatch-1.0/libinstpatch/libinstpatch.h
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.

Thanks, updated the Requires, added the COPYING file to %doc, and emailed upstream about the FSF address:
Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/libinstpatch.spec
SRPM URL:
http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/libinstpatch-1.0.0-3.20110806svn386.fc15.src.rpm

Hi Orcan,

this looks good to go. I did have trouble running the test included in the devel package, but I'll leave up that up to you to decide.

Cheers,

Brendan

+ OK
- N/A
! Problem
? Not evaluated

Required
========

[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines 
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
unless building for F12 and below  or EPEL   
[+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines 
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license 
[+] License file must be included in %doc
[+] The spec file must be written in American English
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
[+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary
architecture
[+] Proper use of ExcludeArch 
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package
[+] A package must own all directories that it creates
directories under this
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line
[+] Each package must consistently use macros
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[+] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section 
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

Should Items
============
[+] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to
include it
[-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the
package spec if available
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
[?] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
*** see below
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[+] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] 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
[-] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts

gcc -o /tmp/test_libinst /./usr/share/doc/libinstpatch-devel-1.0.0/create_sf2.c -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib64/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/libinstpatch-1.0 -linstpatch-1.0 -lglib-2.0 -lgobject-2.0

./test_libinst Synth_Stab_10.wav 

(process:18473): GLib-GObject-CRITICAL **: g_object_ref: assertion `object->ref_count > 0' failed

(process:18473): GLib-GObject-CRITICAL **: g_object_unref: assertion `object->ref_count > 0' failed

Thanks for the review Breandan. I'll check out the issue with the test.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: libinstpatch
Short Description: MIDI instrument patch library
Owners: oget
Branches: f15 f16
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Hi, I tried your test and it produced an output.sf2 file in the directory where you executed the ./test_libinst binary, and it looks like a valid .sf2 file to me.

I don't know about the importance of the warning messages. I see such messages with some other gtk2 applications too.

libinstpatch-1.0.0-3.20110806svn386.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libinstpatch-1.0.0-3.20110806svn386.fc15

libinstpatch-1.0.0-3.20110806svn386.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libinstpatch-1.0.0-3.20110806svn386.fc16

libinstpatch-1.0.0-3.20110806svn386.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.

libinstpatch-1.0.0-3.20110806svn386.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

libinstpatch-1.0.0-3.20110806svn386.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.