Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/zsun/test/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00700215-twolame/twolame.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/zsun/test/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00700215-twolame/twolame-0.3.13-8.fc28.src.rpm Description: Optimized MPEG Audio Layer 2 encoding library based on tooLAME Fedora Account System Username: zsun Legal approval: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/DBZ3Q3XDAQF2KBTME5PXJPP4OZG6UEQT/ Since mp3 is now allowed in Fedora, I am moving the package from RPMFusion to Fedora.
># fix HTML docs line endings >for file in html/*.html ; do > tr -d '\r' <$file >$file.unix && mv $file.unix $file >done Wouldn't it be simpler to use dos2unix here?
Oh, I try to keep it mostly as-is from rpmfusion. I can post an update if this is essential for a review.
Packages remaining to rebuild: fawkes kf5-libkface player but player is FTBFS bug #1533278 , fawkes depends on player and kf5-libkface bug #1423813 was retired and add to Fedora fedora-obsolete-packages
(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #3) > Packages remaining to rebuild: > fawkes > kf5-libkface > player > > but player is FTBFS bug #1533278 , fawkes depends on player and kf5-libkface > bug #1423813 was retired and add to Fedora fedora-obsolete-packages Hi Sergio, This is the review request of twolame. I believe you are commenting about kde related packages which is not about twolame. Let's keep this bug focused.
sorry wrote in wrong bug is was for bug 1530090 ...
Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* LGPL", "*No copyright* Public domain", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address) LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/twolame/review- twolame/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 481280 bytes in 30 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in twolame- libs , twolame-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: twolame-0.3.13-8.fc28.x86_64.rpm twolame-libs-0.3.13-8.fc28.x86_64.rpm twolame-devel-0.3.13-8.fc28.x86_64.rpm twolame-debuginfo-0.3.13-8.fc28.x86_64.rpm twolame-debugsource-0.3.13-8.fc28.x86_64.rpm twolame-0.3.13-8.fc28.src.rpm twolame.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tooLAME -> too Lame, too-lame, toolmaker twolame.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tooLAME -> too Lame, too-lame, toolmaker twolame.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow twolame.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sulaco -> consular twolame.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end twolame.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib twolame.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/twolame/README twolame.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/twolame/COPYING twolame-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tooLAME -> too Lame, too-lame, toolmaker twolame-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tooLAME -> too Lame, too-lame, toolmaker twolame-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow twolame-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sulaco -> consular twolame-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation twolame-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib twolame-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation twolame.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tooLAME -> too Lame, too-lame, toolmaker twolame.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tooLAME -> too Lame, too-lame, toolmaker twolame.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow twolame.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sulaco -> consular twolame.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end twolame.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/twolame/twolame-0.3.13.tar.gz <urlopen error _ssl.c:761: The handshake operation timed out> 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 19 warnings.
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/twolame
twolame-0.3.13-9.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-95a02e792a
Hi Yaakov, Now I built twolame for Rawhide and Fedora 27. If you need other branch, feel free to let me know.
Thanks! Good enough for me, but I imagine someone may want this in EPEL at some point.
twolame-0.3.13-9.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.