Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/music/nted.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/music/nted-0.22.3-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: NtEd is a GTK score editor. It intends to be really WYSIWYG: what you see on the screen is exactly what you get on printer output. It supports up to 4 voices per staff, drum notes, 5 lyrics lines, N-Tuplets, context changes, repeats with alternatives, configurable music instruments per staff, MIDI and Postscript export, MusicXML import. Scores can be played through the ALSA sequencer.
Review Guidelines MUST items: OK: rpmlint produces no output OK: naming guidelines OK: %{name}.spec ??: Packaging Guidelines FAIL: Licensing Guidelines All the source files seem to be GPLv2+. Help->About dialog is GPLv2+. But COPYING is GPLv3 OK: License field match (GPLv2+) OK: %doc COPYING OK: spec file in en_US OK: legible spec file OK: Sources match upstream OK: Compiles and builds on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=594520 N/A: Builds on all arches OK: All build deps listed OK: Uses %find_lang N/A: no shared libs N/A: not relocatable OK: owns all created dirs OK: no duplicate files in %files OK: proper file permissions OK: %clean with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK: consistent use of macros OK: packagecontains code OK: Those two HTML manuals are not necessarily "large docs" for a -doc pkg. Oh, and they are needed as online help at runtime. OK: %doc files must not affect runtime... Ah, THAT is why the en and de HTML manuals are not %doc. N/A: No header files N/A: no static libs N/A: no foo.pc file N/A: no libfoo.so.1.1 N/A: devel package N/A: no .la files OK: desktop file OK, but German translations to go with the German manual would be nice. OK: Does not own other apps' files or dirs OK: %install starts with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK: All filenames are valid ASCII and thus UTF-8 Review Guidelines SHOULD items: FAIL: No COPYING for GPLv2 ??: Are Summary(de) and %description(de) available? OK: Builds in local mock OK: Builds in Fedora koji on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64 OK: Appears to function as described. N/A: No scriptlets N/A: no subpackages N/A: no foo.pc N/A: no file deps Packaging Guidelines: ??: Is there a reason not to use the standard compiler flags? Maybe add CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" to the "make" line? FAIL: Creates both /usr/share/doc/%{name} and /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} Adding "--docdir=%{_docdir}" to "%configure" might help. - Wasn't there a way to mark the language of the "de" HTML manual? Not that any of the policy requires that... General remarks which do not affect the outcome of the review: - I'd recommend to add a "-b .slur" to "%patch1 -p1" - There are a number of compiler warnings which scream for a fix: voice.cpp:2071: warning: suggest parentheses around && within || chordorrest.cpp:2142: warning: format '%x' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 2 has type 'NedChordOrRest*' chordorrest.cpp:2284: warning: comparisons like X<=Y<=Z do not have their mathematical meaning NEEDSWORK And on we go to the next iteration.
Incorporated all the changes requested: - uses $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - documentation now in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}, de and en pages tagged - compiler warnings fixed Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/music/nted.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/music/nted-0.22.3-2.fc9.src.rpm
Review Guidelines MUST items: OK: rpmlint produces no output OK: naming guidelines OK: %{name}.spec OK: Packaging Guidelines OK: Licensing Guidelines All the source files seem to be GPLv2+. Help->About dialog is GPLv2+. HTML manuals are GFDLv1.2+ COPYING is GPLv3. Ergo: Multiple licenses, but conforms to Fedora Licensing Guidelines. FAIL: License field match Does not cover HTML manuals. Use "License: GPLv2+ and GFDL"? FAIL: %doc COPYING "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 must be included in %doc." OK... as the shipped COPYING file is GPLv3+, which none of the files in the source package is licensed under, the source package does NOT include the text of the licenses in its own file. So we just can NOT %doc COPYING to technically satisfy the guidelines. Probably upstream has just shipped the default COPYING file autoreconf automatically adds to the source tree. We should to confirm this with upstream. OK: spec file in en_US OK: legible spec file OK: Sources match upstream OK: Compiles and builds on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=594520 N/A: Builds on all arches OK: All build deps listed OK: Uses %find_lang N/A: no shared libs N/A: not relocatable OK: owns all created dirs OK: no duplicate files in %files OK: proper file permissions OK: %clean with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK: consistent use of macros OK: packagecontains code OK: Those two HTML manuals are not necessarily "large docs" for a -doc pkg. Oh, and they are needed as online help at runtime. OK: %doc files must not affect runtime... The "Help->Documentation" menu item just shows an untitled dialog window +---------------------------------------------+ | Excuse! The documentation is not available | | due to an installation error | | [ OK ] | +---------------------------------------------+ Apart from this, nted works like a charm with or without docs. N/A: No header files N/A: no static libs N/A: no foo.pc file N/A: no libfoo.so.1.1 N/A: devel package N/A: no .la files OK: desktop file OK, but German translations to go with the German manual would be nice. OK: Does not own other apps' files or dirs OK: %install starts with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK: All filenames are valid ASCII and thus UTF-8 Review Guidelines SHOULD items: FAIL: No COPYING for GPLv2 OK: Are Summary(de) and %description(de) available? Yes, now. OK: Builds in local mock OK: Builds in Fedora koji on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64 OK: Appears to function as described. N/A: No scriptlets N/A: no subpackages N/A: no foo.pc N/A: no file deps Packaging Guidelines: OK: Uses standard compiler flags now. OK: All docs in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} now. SUMMARY: FAIL License: ignores HTML manual license FAIL We need to NOT "%doc COPYING". Just ignore the COPYING file. SHOULDFIX Docs: Are installed to a place where nted cannot find it. I have a patch. OPTIONAL Add lang(de) versions for Summary: and Description: OPTIONAL Assist upstream with cleaning up nted's configure.in OPTIONAL The code is still full of ugly compiler warnings. I'd say upstream should fix that, possibly with some help. See http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/nted/0.22.3-2.4.fc9/ for my suggested fixes for the first four three of these. When you have a fix for the first three, I'll approve the package, unless you want to update to the nted-0.24.1 release before review completion.
Incorporated your changes, and updated to 0.24.1 . Fixed the obvious compiler warnings, but the warnings about uninitialized variables are probably better left to upstream -- I've sent him the updated patches. Updated SRPM: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/music/nted-0.24.1-1.fc9.src.rpm (patches are available in the same directory)
Watching the diffs, I find: - Upstream COPYING is unchanged. Good. - Upstream file licenses are unchanged. Good. - You have made sure configure does not reset CXXFLAGS. Good catch. - You are resetting icondir from $(datadir)/icons to $(datadir)/pixmaps for some reason. Makes no difference to me. - You have fixed a bunch more compiler warnings. Good. (Have you sent this upstream?) - More translations for nted.desktop. Good. - po/nted.pot is now broken with CVS merge conflicts. Does not affect us. - You have removed the "Requires: yelp". Hmm... whatever. "Help|Documentation" will still need yelp, won't it? - You also install the Italian manual. Good. So there remains a single issue now that you are changing configure.in... rebuilding the RPM from the SRPM appears to re-run aclocal, automake, autoconf, autoheader, and we'd like to avoid this. Looks like adding something like sleep 1 find . -type f -name Makefile.in | xargs touch touch aclocal.m4 config.h.in configure at the end of %prep prevents automake&Co re-runs. When this last one is done, I'll finally shut up and approve it.
Ah. the configure.in patch is really only needed for upstream, I can just not patch it (configure is patched by hand) Requires: yelp was removed because there are still disagreements about whether it should be depended on -- no core GNOME applications require it, for instance, and the problem is that it pulls in a lot of dependency for people who don't already run GNOME. Compiler warnings are sent to upstream, yes. Re-uploaded; same file names
ACCEPT
Ping? Michel, you can proceed now with the CVS stuff.
Michel, are you still there? Upstream has been mailing us with updates, and we don't even have the package in Fedora yet. I'd love to co-maintain this thing, but I don't want to be the maintainer for something I have reviewed and approved myself, for obvious reasons.
One month has passed since this package passed the review, and nothing has happened. Michel, is there a chance that something will happen in the future, or are we just going to close this down?
Closing this bug due to lack of communication from prospective maintainer. I intend to file my own review request of nted.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 461402 ***