I think this should be named just qtmidi, we only use qt5- prefix on core modules released by qtproject.org (to ensure parallel-installability mostly)

Isn't that guideline in conflict with how we commonly do it for qt5 addons to use -qt5 as a suffix instead? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages

My vote goes for the package name qtmidi-qt5.

There is absolutely no reason for the src.rpm %name to be qt5-qtmidi instead of qtmidi. Upstream name is "qtmidi", and that ought to be the %name for this package.

The naming guidelines are also clear about how to name the binary packages: %{parent}-%{child}, and since there are multiple versions of Qt in the distribution, an extension lib for Qt5 makes %parent "qt5".

[...]

Regardless of the naming stuff, the package ought to be fixed. Please consider pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket:

  fedora-review -b 1450122

That tool is not only for reviewers. Packagers ought to be familiar with it, too.

[...]

Some findings based on skimming over the spec file:


> Summary:        Qt 5 Multimedia Library

Ambiguous. Better:

  Platform independent MIDI module for Qt 5.


> License:        GPL-3.0

This has never been one of the license tags used by Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses


> %description
> Qt is a set of libraries for developing applications.

Simplified so much, it isn't helpful. Interestingly, the %description of qt5-qtbase is very simple, too.


>  This package contains an plugin to support MIDI input and output devices.

... a plugin ...


> %package devel
> Summary:        Qt Development Kit

Not true. Inaccurate.


> Group:          Development/Libraries/X11

Unusual, and the "Group:" tag should not be set anymore for years:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections


> Requires:       %{name} = %{version}

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package


> Provides:       libQt5Midi-devel = %{version}
> Obsoletes:      libQt5Midi-devel < %{version}

> Provides:       libQt5Midi-private-headers-devel = %{version}
> Obsoletes:      libQt5Midi-private-headers-devel < %{version}

What other distribution do these try to cover? Debian? Come on, these would be of very limited use to package users and would only cause Repo/RPM metadata bloat.


> %files private-headers-devel
> %license LICENSE.GPLv3
> %doc README.md

Superfluous duplication of %license and %doc files, since package depends on -devel.

Ping? Reporter, are you still interested in this package?

Yes, I'm still interested. Apologies - I was on vacation for the summer and then the Fedora 26 upgrade broke my system pretty nasty. I will update this PR.

Many of the oddities are a result of this Spec file's pedigree. Upstream provides a build of this package for Fedora/SuSE/Ubuntu and others from the OpenSuSE Build Service. I picked this up from there and brought it along for this PR. I thought I had nipped most of the problems, but clearly not!

OK, I've renamed the main specfile and SRPM to qtmidi. I've also tried to eliminate the cruft from the metadata and the build process, where possible. I'm generating out qt5-qtmidi binary packages. And I tried to make better sense out of the summaries and descriptions based off what upstream's spec file had already said about itself.

Spec file: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/qt5-qtmidi/qtmidi.spec
SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/qt5-qtmidi/qtmidi-0.1-2.fc27.src.rpm

Package doesn't build in rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22514302

  + tar xaf /builddir/build/SOURCES/archive.tar.bz2
  + '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
  + mv 'qtmidi-v0.1-*' qtmidi-0.1
  mv: cannot stat 'qtmidi-v0.1-*': No such file or directory

I'm not seeing the same issue. I haven't changed anything except to rebuild the SRPM in the fc28 namespace.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23168428

Here's a rebuild against Rawhide in the Fedora 29 cycle. Anyone want to finish out this review for me?

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25690967

SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/qt5-qtmidi/qtmidi-0.1-2.fc29.src.rpm
Spec: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/qt5-qtmidi/qtmidi.spec

Here are builds from earlier this month in Fedora 27, 28, 29 and current Rawhide: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/greghellings/EntropyPianoTuner/build/843035/

Spec: https://github.com/greg-hellings/copr/blob/master/EntropyPianoTuner/qtmidi/qtmidi.spec
SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/greghellings/EntropyPianoTuner/srpm-builds/00850204/qtmidi-0.1-3.20190107git4ada7e12.fc28.src.rpm

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.