Spec URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/awesfx/awesfx.spec SRPM URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/awesfx/awesfx-0.5.1c-1.src.rpm Description: This is a reintroduction request of the package awesfx, which incurred in end of life ( see 470642 , 405131 ) during F8 life cycle. Upstream seems to have stopped developing the program around 2004, it was then maintained by suse folks to compile with newer releases in 2007. This one adds a tiny patch to let it compile on F11, it compiles on F10 as well without patching. This is my first packaging targeted at fedora project so i need sponsorship; or if someone of the packagers group wants to take over maintenance of this package, i welcome him. spec and generated rpms are rpmlint'd, but i cant tell whether all guidelines requirements are met. cheers
Koji build is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1240179
Hi Guido, thanks for this submission. I guess after the recent discussions about mixers, pluseaudio, alsa etc, it's just the right time for this package. I do have the hardware, so I' going to review this. Stay tuned.
(In reply to comment #2) > Hi Guido, thanks for this submission. > > I guess after the recent discussions about mixers, pluseaudio, alsa etc, it's > just the right time for this package. I do have the hardware, so I' going to > review this. Stay tuned. Hi Christoph thank you; if you are wondering why i move soundfonts from the source package default /usr/share/sounds/sf2 to /usr/share/soundfonts, it's because while i had no hint about that from the guidelines, i found other packages shipping soundfonts in that directory: PersonalCopy-Lite-soundfont and fluid-soundfont cheers
I am going to sponsor Guido, so removing the FE-NEEDSPONSOR tag.
FIX - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint Desktop/awesfx-0.5.1c-1.src.rpm awesfx.src: W: non-coherent-filename awesfx-0.5.1c-1.src.rpm awesfx-0.5.1c-1.fc10.src.rpm OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. FIX - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+ FIX - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by MD5 73f940279f909bfa5ad307d904bc88da OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. FIX - MUST: The package does not all directories that it creates OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. OK - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. OK - SHOULD: uses opt_flags and smp_mflags Issues: - Package does not match the naming guidelines, Correct is version 0.5.1 release 1%{?dist} see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages - change License tag to GPLv2+, take a look at the source - You are not owning %{buildroot}/etc/alsa.d, and AFAIK that dir is not created by another package ether - this wont work %dir %{_datadir}/soundfonts/*.bnk - add INSTALL ="install -p" to make install to preserve timestamps of the soundbank files - I suggest to use install rather then cp so you can always be sure permissions are correct.
(In reply to comment #5) > Issues: > - Package does not match the naming guidelines, Correct is version 0.5.1 > release 1%{?dist} see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages Sorry i dont understand this one; i read the guidelines and it seems to be correct to version the package 0.5.1c, as it is the third bugfix release under version 0.5.1 > > - change License tag to GPLv2+, take a look at the source > > - You are not owning %{buildroot}/etc/alsa.d, and AFAIK that dir is not created > by another package ether > > - this wont work %dir %{_datadir}/soundfonts/*.bnk > > - add INSTALL ="install -p" to make install to preserve timestamps of the > soundbank files > > - I suggest to use install rather then cp so you can always be sure permissions > are correct. ok rpmlint is now silent; latest files here: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/awesfx/awesfx.spec http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/awesfx/awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc9.src.rpm cheers
(In reply to comment #6) > Sorry i dont understand this one; i read the guidelines and it seems to be > correct to version the package 0.5.1c, as it is the third bugfix release under > version 0.5.1 I was under the impression that characters were not allowed in releases and are always moved to the release field. But you are correct, the wiki does not say so explicitly. If you like you can stick with 0.5.1c-1%{?dist}, but I'd prefer 0.5.1-1%{?dist}.c Let's see what we have now: OK - License tag matches actual license (GPLv2+) OK - %files section fixed: package owns %{_sysconfdir}/alsa.d and %{_datadir}/soundfonts/ OK - Time stamps preserved during install OK - Permissions of files are correct. The package awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc9.src.rpm is APPROVED.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > Sorry i dont understand this one; i read the guidelines and it seems to be > > correct to version the package 0.5.1c, as it is the third bugfix release under > > version 0.5.1 > > I was under the impression that characters were not allowed in releases and are > always moved to the release field. But you are correct, the wiki does not say > so explicitly. If you like you can stick with 0.5.1c-1%{?dist}, but I'd prefer > 0.5.1-1%{?dist}.c Guido's numbering is correct, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_package "Properly ordered simple versions. These are usually due to quick bugfix releases, such as openssl-0.9.6b or gkrellm-2.1.7a. As new versions come out, the non-numeric tag is properly incremented (e.g. openssl-0.9.6c) or the numeric version is increased and the non-numeric tag is dropped (openssl-0.9.7). In this case, the non-numeric characters are permitted in the Version: field. "
I wouldn't say this one or that one is correct, both are allowed as per guidelines.
Guido, it's time for the CVS Admin Procedure, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure
(In reply to comment #10) > Guido, it's time for the CVS Admin Procedure, see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure i'm ready to do that, but as suggested in the wiki, i mailed -devel to tell i'm asking to re-include a retired package; still waiting for someone, maybe the former owner, to answer
Tried to contact former packager via email but got no replies yet; current package owner is perex. Package was retired on 2008-04-10 ("doesn't compile with the latest kernel") between F8 and F9 releases. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: awesfx New Branches: F-10 F-11 Owners: perex guidograzioli
cvs done. Note that if this was blocked in koji, you will need to file a rel-eng ticket to unblock it.
thx, and yep you are right Kevin, i just filed a new releng ticket
awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc10
awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc11
awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update awesfx'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-7333
awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update awesfx'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7366
awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
awesfx-0.5.1c-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.