SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/libid3tag/0.15.1b/10.fc12/src/libid3tag-0.15.1b-10.fc12.src.rpm Spec: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/fileinfo?rpmID=1721588&filename=libid3tag.spec Description: libid3tag is a library for reading and (eventually) writing ID3 tags, both ID3v1 and the various versions of ID3v2.
Already packaged! https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/libid3tag If you want to become a co(maintainer) - just ask Todd Zullinger <tmz> to add you.
Oops! Just realized that it's a *Merge* review. Sorry for noise.
MUST items: [YES] rpmplint is silent [?] Package meets naming guidelines. Please see note (1). [YES] Package meets packaging guidelines. [YES] Spec file matches base package name. [YES] License file is present, matching with spec file, Licensing Guidelines are met. [YES] Spec file is legible and in American English. [YES] Source match upstream. [YES] Package builds OK. [YES] BuildRequires is correct. [YES] ldconfig is called in %post and %postun. [YES] Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries. [YES] Package owns all the directories it creates. [YES] Package has no duplicity in %files. [YES] Permission on files are set properly. [YES] %clean section is correct. [YES] Spec file has consistant macro usage. [YES] Package is code or permissable content. [YES] %doc files don't affect runtime. [YES] Header files are in -devel package. [YES] pkgconfig -> Requires: pkgconfig is used. [YES] Unversioned libraries in -devel package. [YES] -devel requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [YES] No .la libtool archives. [YES] Package doesn't own files/directories that other packages own. [YES] Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at beginning of %install. [YES] All filenames are valid UTF-8. Should items: [YES] Should builds in mock. [YES] Should have sane scriptlets. [YES] .pc files in -devel. Notes: (1) Marked as (beta) by developer (see CHANGES file), I think it should be named something like this: libid3tag-0.15.1-0.1.b (according to Package Naming Guidelines). But it seems there are only beta releases in. the project, so I am not sure.
$ rpmlint libid3tag-devel-0.15.1b-10.fc13.x86_64.rpm libid3tag-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The beta version is not according to guidelines, but I suppose it's there from historical reason... I'd like to ask Fedora maitainer for opinion. CC'ing
That one's before my time. Per the guidelines it should be as Jaraslov suggests, with the 'b' moved from version to release. It would require an epoch to do this though, as 0.15.1b is greater than 0.15.1 in rpm's view. Another concern is that the generated pkg-config file would need to be fixed up so that it uses 0.15.1b, which it does now by way of %{version}. I believe Ville set this up in cvs revision 1.10 of the spec file. Perhaps he can comment on the rationale? I'm not sure there's much benefit to cleaning this one up, as it's legacy software that only a few packages still use (I happen to maintain gtkpod, which is one of the few that do, so I picked up libid3tag when Ville had the good sense to let it go).
If I interpret the change logs correct, moving the "b" from release to version happened some time after the time this package was imported from fedora.us to Fedora Extras, and if I remember correctly at that time there was some resistance towards some fedora.us guidelines and some non-fedora.us people felt strongly that non-numeric version bits belong in version and that it'd be silly to split them into the release tag. Anyway, I agree that moving the "b" around now and introducing an Epoch doesn't add any real value. It can be "fixed" later in the (unlikely, I guess) event that a new upstream release comes out sometime.
Thank you for response, seems like more troubles to create than solve. Please keep in mind for eventual future updates. fedora-review +.