Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/abcMIDI.spec SRPM URL: https://gathman.org/linux/f31/src/abcMIDI-2020.05.06-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: The abcMIDI package contains four programs: abc2midi to convert ABC music notation to MIDI, midi2abc to convert MIDI files to (a first approximation to) the corresponding ABC, abc2abc to reformat and/or transpose ABC files, and yaps to typeset ABC files as PostScript. Fedora Account System Username: sdgathman NOTE: does not build on rawhide - compiler is more strict. I should have a patch to fix the issues by the time someone reviews this. The fatal issue is globals defined multiple times. Trivial to fix (if the instances are actually all the same). I'll fix a few warnings while I'm at it. License is embedded in readme.txt. Should I patch in a LICENSE file? I will contact upstream also.
Also, upstream has no SCM, and posts new latest every few months. I have been tracking changes in a mirror repo: https://github.com/sdgathman/abcmidi Should I continue to pull the zip file from upstream? Or from my mirror (which includes LICENSE, etc)? I've already gotten an opinion to continue with upstream format, but maybe there is a counter argument.
Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/abcMIDI.spec SRPM URL: https://gathman.org/linux/f33/src/abcMIDI-2020.05.06-2.fc33.src.rpm Added patches to build on rawhide.
- Group:, BuildRoot: are not used in Fedora - Add a comment above the patch explaining why it is needed. -Don't: rm -rf %{buildroot} - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is the default, therefore not needed. - -Ask upstream for a License file-, strike that the license is provided in doc/gpl.txt - The Source should be the official archive. Any modification must happen within the SPEC: this could be patches, but could also be a script that you join as SourceX that is used to modify the official archive. Another issue I have with your repo is that you joined the LICENSE file yourself, this is contrary to the Packaging guidelines which states that the License file must be provided by upstream and that the packager can't add it themselves. Another issue is the maintainability of the package, if you link to your repo and you fail to update it after a while, we would maybe miss new releases. - Bump to 0.6.25 - Use install -p to keep timestamps
Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/abcMIDI.spec SRPM URL: https://gathman.org/linux/f33/src/abcMIDI-2020.06.29-1.fc33.src.rpm New upstream release. Includes my patches, so they are removed.
- BuildRoot: is not used in Fedora Package approved, please fix this remaining issue before import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/abcMIDI See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GNU General Public License (v2 or later)". 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/abcMIDI/review-abcMIDI/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. [-]: 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 624640 bytes in 17 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 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 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: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: abcMIDI-2020.06.29-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm abcMIDI-debuginfo-2020.06.29-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm abcMIDI-debugsource-2020.06.29-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm abcMIDI-2020.06.29-1.fc33.src.rpm abcMIDI.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userguide -> user guide, user-guide, guider abcMIDI.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, GitHub abcMIDI.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps abcMIDI.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abcmatch abcMIDI.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userguide -> user guide, user-guide, guider abcMIDI.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, GitHub abcMIDI.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US repo -> rope, rep, reps 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Package is still blocked for all but rawhide.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9564
DUP unretire https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9499
Since it did build for rawhide, I'll close this.