Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 192876
Review Request: V2Strip ID3v2(Mp3 Files) tags remover
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:33 EST
Spec URL: http://www.netservers.org/packages/rpm/v2strip.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.netservers.org/packages/rpm/v2strip-0.2.10-1.src.rpm
Description: Little utility that removes ID3v2 tags from MP3 files.
The new ID3v2 tag format is nice in many ways, but it can cause
confusion when parsed by certain MP3 players/utilities not yet
supporting ID3v2 tags.
Review for this package:
- Package in non-standard group (Applications/Shell), see:
- The application don't need the 'openssl-devel' BuildRequires. (Why?)
- You must include the COPYING file in %doc's %files. It contains the license
of the application (GPL).
- ChangeLog should be in %doc too.
- When creating a new specfile, the recommended way is to create using the
- (Really minor) The arrangement in the specfile could be better. Spacing and
these things. The 'fedora-newrpmspec' helps on this. You can look at other
specs too. Just to get the specfile more organized and pretty :-)
- (Really minor) Description is ok. Consider putting "v2strip is a ..." before
the description field. Example: "v2strip is a little utility that removes
- Source package matches the package from upstream
- Builds and works fine
- Package name ok
Fixed error in comment #1
* Package in non-standard group (Applications/Shells), see:
* You can drop the NEWS from the docs, since it appears to have the same
information as the Changelog file.
* Shouldn't refer to the package name in Summary. A better one might be 'ID3v2
Fixed problems in comment #3
- rpmlint checks return nothing! :)
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
Short, sweet, simple.
Andrea if this is built, you need to close this bug. Refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/NewPackageProcess - step 14.
This has been approved for more than 3 months. If it doesn't show movement soon,
I'm going to rescind my approval and close this bug.
Approval rescinded. Bug closed WONTFIX.