Bug 429593 - Review Request: podsleuth - probes, identifies, and exposes properties and metadata bound to iPods
Review Request: podsleuth - probes, identifies, and exposes properties and me...
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Christopher Aillon
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-01-21 15:57 EST by David Nielsen
Modified: 2008-02-23 11:44 EST (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: podsleuth-0.6.0-4.fc9.x86_64
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-02-23 11:44:53 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
caillon: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description David Nielsen 2008-01-21 15:57:52 EST
Spec URL: http://www.lovesunix.net/fedora/podsleuth.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.lovesunix.net/fedora/podsleuth-0.6.0-1.fc8.src.rpm


PodSleuth is a new project I started last May that aims to probe, identify, and expose properties and metadata bound to iPods. It obsoletes libipoddevice, which had the same goals, but due to many reasons ended up being a mess of spaghetti code and hacks due to effectively being obsoleted overnight about a year ago when Apple made a particular firmware release.

PodSleuth takes the many lessons learned from libipoddevice and evolutions of the iPod itself and implements hardware support in a more future proof, yet backwards compatible and easy to maintain way.

(I am aware that 0.6.1 is out but all that changes is hardcoding $prefix/lib and similar changes which would need to be patched out anyways)
Comment 1 manuel wolfshant 2008-01-21 20:54:20 EST
Using %_libexecdir instead of /usr/libexec will bring you additional karma points.
Comment 2 David Nielsen 2008-01-21 21:33:20 EST
Spec URL: http://www.lovesunix.net/fedora/podsleuth.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.lovesunix.net/fedora/podsleuth-0.6.0-2.fc8.src.rpm

I'd like to collect my karma points please
Comment 3 manuel wolfshant 2008-01-21 21:48:43 EST
I'll try to give it a shot tomorrow. But I would be more interested in seeing
ewal life applications using it...
Comment 4 manuel wolfshant 2008-01-21 21:52:34 EST
"ewal" should be read "real"
Comment 5 David Nielsen 2008-01-21 22:03:10 EST
No worries, Podsleuth is being used by the 0.13.2 release of Banshee and will be
used by all future versions.

I'll need to patch up the new banshee a bit for more of this libdir madness but
once that is done I can provide a test srpm that uses the external ndesk-dbus,
boo and utilizes podslueth.. a brave new world.
Comment 6 manuel wolfshant 2008-01-22 05:24:16 EST
I am sorry, but I will not be able to do a full review because I have no
computer to test this application on (it does not build for F7 which is the
newest in the Fedora line that I have access to).
However, here is a preliminary review, maybe it will be useful to someone who
decides to continue:

 Package Review

 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
       See note 1
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on:devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM:empty
binary RPM:
 podsleuth.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
 podsleuth.x86_64: E: no-binary
 podsleuth.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
I think all of these are ignorable
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [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.
     License type:MIT
 [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 %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: d4ea13c3905fac15d1acf79b5fd56cca5b5e1287
 [?] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
See note 2
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

 [x] Latest version is packaged.
One later version exists, but packaging an older version is intentional
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on:x86/devel
 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     Tested on: only on devel/x86_64
 [?] Package functions as described.
 [?] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
See note 5
 [x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [x] File based requires are sane.

=== Final Notes ===
1. Parallel make is not activated. If it is known to not work, please add a
comment about it. If it works, please add %{?_smp_mflags} to the make line
2. Is this program known to work on PPC ? I am not familiar with PPCs and I
cannot test either...
3. The devel package misses %defattr(-,root,root,-)
4. No debuginfo package was generated in my mock build. Should there be one?
5. I am not familiar enough with mono to know if the gacutil related info from
applies here or not.
Comment 7 David Nielsen 2008-01-22 07:26:47 EST
1. An oversight
2. Right, we have no Mono on ppc64, I forgot to ExcludeArch that one
3. Watch my shame.. bugger
4. Intentional, Mono generates debug symbols by demand at runtime
5. Will investigate
Comment 8 David Nielsen 2008-02-01 03:47:24 EST
SRPM: http://dnielsen.fedorapeople.org/podsleuth-0.6.0-3.fc8.src.rpm
SPEC: http://dnielsen.fedorapeople.org/podsleuth.spec

Added a note that parallel build breaks
Excluded ppc64
Fixed file permissions

omission of debug symbols is intentional
gac registation does not appear to be needed
Comment 9 David Nielsen 2008-02-01 03:52:43 EST
I've created the following for testing:


You'll also need taglib-sharp:

and the latest mono-zeroconf:

As soon as podsleuth and taglib-sharp pass reviews I plan to start work on
getting banshee 0.13.2 into the stable repos.
Comment 10 David Nielsen 2008-02-01 03:55:37 EST
Adding Paul Johnson to CC

Paul would you mind doing a review of this?
Comment 11 Christopher Aillon 2008-02-10 10:39:11 EST
* For consistency, please use the same ExclusiveArch that the mono spec uses. 

* Please separate the -devel subpackage Requires onto different lines, because
it is difficult to read otherwise.

* Does the -devel package need to Require: the items that the main package

With those addressed, this has my review and can land.
Comment 12 David Nielsen 2008-02-18 14:25:18 EST
Upsie this got lost a bit, many apologies

New Package CVS Request
Package Name: podsleuth
Short Description: Probes, identifies, and exposes properties and metadata bound
to iPods
Owners: dnielsen
Branches: f8, f7
Cvsextras Commits: yes

Comment 13 Kevin Fenzi 2008-02-18 15:15:02 EST
cvs done.
Comment 14 David Nielsen 2008-02-23 11:44:53 EST
Now in the devel repos, CLOSING

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