Bug 830664
| Summary: | Review Request: Add64 - an additive synthesizer for JACK | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | lemenkov, notting, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | lemenkov:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-08-14 00:51:23 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 805236 | ||
|
Description
Brendan Jones
2012-06-11 07:24:41 UTC
I'll review it. Koji scratchbuild for Rawhide failed due to the missing "BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils"): * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4242920 I added this line and it builds fine now: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4242930 So please add this BuildRequires. REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint Add64-* Add64.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Add64 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Well, I *personally* don't like Capitalized Name, but it seems how upstream names it. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (strict GPLv3 as stated in README where upstream refers to the GPLv3 file - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html ). + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum Add64-1.2.2.tar.bz2* d3f8a691711a9a3d47b1baeef0dec413a0d94642bd89b3e9193c31121c5654e5 Add64-1.2.2.tar.bz2 d3f8a691711a9a3d47b1baeef0dec413a0d94642bd89b3e9193c31121c5654e5 Add64-1.2.2.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. - Not all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. See my note above. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please add missing buildrequires which is easy to fix. This package is APPROVED. Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: Add64 Short Description: an additive synthesizer for JACK Owners: bsjones Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: Peter, its come to my attention that there is a manual for this software - do you see any issue with me including this in a docs subpackage? http://sourceforge.net/projects/add64/files/ (In reply to comment #4) > Peter, its come to my attention that there is a manual for this software - > do you see any issue with me including this in a docs subpackage? > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/add64/files/ No, I don't have any objections, but you have to adjust License tag accordingly (any of the content/documentation licenses or "Redistributable without modifications"). I advise you to consult with the author regarding it. * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Documentation_Licenses * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Content_Licenses Git done (by process-git-requests). Add64-1.2.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Add64-1.2.2-2.fc17 Add64-1.2.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. Add64-1.2.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. |