Bug 225757 - Merge Review: flac
Merge Review: flac
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Bastien Nocera
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 13:38 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2010-07-03 18:00 EDT (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-08-10 21:35:57 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
dan: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 13:38:00 EST
Fedora Merge Review: flac

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/flac/
Initial Owner: davidz@redhat.com
Comment 1 Bastien Nocera 2007-02-13 04:20:12 EST
Would be my bug actually.
Comment 2 Dan Horák 2007-02-13 10:16:13 EST
First shots:
- a dot is used at the end of the Summary lines
- not using suggested BuildRoot
    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- using %makeinstall, I think %make install should work
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-fcaf3e6fcbd51194a5d0dbcfbdd2fcb7791dd002)
- static library is packaged
Comment 3 Bastien Nocera 2007-02-13 10:32:22 EST
Should be fixed in 1.1.3-2
Comment 4 Dan Horák 2007-02-13 12:57:43 EST
The formal review is here:
OK	source files match upstream:
	    ba0bf8b4720537b08aba9b0d2d5b3fbe796ce9957a56334354a2f95694866a7c 
flac-1.1.3.tar.gz
OK	package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK	specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK	dist tag is present.
OK	build root is correct.
OK	license field matches the actual license.
OK	license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
OK	latest version is being packaged.
OK	BuildRequires are proper.
OK	compiler flags are appropriate.
OK	%clean is present.
OK	package builds in mock (i386).
OK	debuginfo package looks complete.
OK	final provides and requires looks sane:
OK	shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths and ldconfig is
run.
OK	owns the directories it creates.
OK	doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK	no duplicates in %files.
OK	file permissions are appropriate.
OK	no scriptlets present.
OK	code, not content.
OK	documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK	%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK	headers are in -devel.
OK	no pkgconfig files.
OK	not a GUI app.

MUST FIX:

BAD	rpmlint is NOT silent.

result of running "rpmlint -vi"
W: flac-devel summary-ended-with-dot Static libraries and header files from FLAC.
    you forgot the dot in the second Summary ;-)

I: flac.i386.rpm checking
E: flac obsolete-not-provided flac-libs
The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths
and not to break dependencies.

I: flac.srpm checking
W: flac unversioned-explicit-obsoletes flac-libs
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing.  This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
possible.

Some info from the Wiki -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines?highlight=%28obsolete%29#head-3cfc1ea19d28975faad9d56f70a6ae55661d3c3d
Comment 5 Bastien Nocera 2007-02-14 07:01:58 EST
(In reply to comment #4)
> The formal review is here:
<snip>
> MUST FIX:
> 
> BAD	rpmlint is NOT silent.
> 
> result of running "rpmlint -vi"
> W: flac-devel summary-ended-with-dot Static libraries and header files from FLAC.
>     you forgot the dot in the second Summary ;-)

Fixed.

> I: flac.i386.rpm checking
> E: flac obsolete-not-provided flac-libs
> The obsoleted package must also be provided to allow clean upgrade paths
> and not to break dependencies.

Added a Provides.

> I: flac.srpm checking
> W: flac unversioned-explicit-obsoletes flac-libs
> The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
> older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing.  This may cause update
> problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
> was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
> possible.

I'm afraid I don't have a version for the obsoletes. I think flac-libs was being
used by 3rd party repositories before the package was included in RH.

Should all get fixed in the 1.1.4 package (as soon as i resolve patch conflicts)
Comment 6 Dan Horák 2007-02-15 04:09:39 EST
I don't think we need to care about a historical version from 3rd party repo.
The CVS log show that flac was included into Fedora in FC-2 or FC-3 in September
2004, so I would kill the "Obsolete" entirely. Also I don't think we support
upgrades from such old versions.

But all problems are fixed, so package is APPROVED
Comment 7 Matthias Clasen 2007-08-10 21:35:57 EDT
Review done.
Comment 8 Michel Alexandre Salim 2010-07-03 17:38:41 EDT
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: flac
New Branches: EL-5 EL-6
Owners: salimma
InitialCC:

A lot of audio packages are currently not available on RHEL; we should try and get these built before the next RHEL-6 beta
Comment 9 Michel Alexandre Salim 2010-07-03 18:00:25 EDT
My mistake, the package is part of core RHEL (at least for version 5). It's for some reason missing from RHEL 6; I'm clarifying this with epel-devel-list and fedora-devel-list.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.