Spec URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f13/drumstick.spec SRPM URL: http://repo.calcforge.org/f13/drumstick-0.2.99-0.1.fc13.20100107svn.src.rpm Description: The drumstick library is a C++ wrapper around the ALSA library sequencer interface, using Qt4 objects, idioms and style. The ALSA sequencer interface provides software support for MIDI technology on GNU/Linux. IMPORTANT: This package was previously called aseqmm and is being renamed under https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process (the library has been renamed by upstream). Please check the Obsoletes/Provides during the review and confirm that you have done so. Additional information: This is a dependency of KMid2 0.2. (0.1.1 used aseqmm under the old name.) Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1951152 Original specfile (for comparison): http://repo.calcforge.org/f13/aseqmm.spec Original review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=557658 rpmlint output: drumstick.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.2.99-0.1.svn20100107 ['0.2.99-0.1.fc13.20100107svn', '0.2.99-0.1.20100107svn'] drumstick.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.2.99-0.1.svn20100107 ['0.2.99-0.1.fc13.20100107svn', '0.2.99-0.1.20100107svn'] drumstick-devel.i686: W: no-documentation drumstick-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation drumstick-examples.i686: W: no-documentation drumstick-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. The no-documentation ones are harmless as the only relevant documentation (ChangeLog and COPYING) is already shipped in the main package. The incoherent-version-in-changelog is because rpmlint doesn't understand our prerelease naming conventions (the alphatag goes after the disttag, but the disttag is omitted from the changelog). (Grrr, I had just gotten this through the review, build and push process and then I get to learn that it had been renamed 2 weeks before I packaged it. A new KMid2 which uses the renamed library was released yesterday.)
CCing the aseqmm reviewer. (Thomas, do you have time to review this rename as well?)
Sure. Have time in a few hours. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Acknowledge for the re-review request (due to the upstream name change). OK- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK- Spec file matches base package name. OK- Spec has consistant macro usage. OK- Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK- License GPLv2+ OK- License field in spec matches OK- License file included in package OK- Spec in American English OK- Spec is legible. OK- Sources match upstream md5sum: b8852fa0eafd6a771f8a036224bcba4f NN- Package needs ExcludeArch OK- BuildRequires correct NN- Spec handles locales/find_lang OK- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK- Package has a correct %clean section. OK- Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK- Package is code or permissible content. OK- Doc subpackage not needed. OK- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK- .so files in -devel subpackage. OK- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK- .la files are removed. OK- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK- Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK- Package owns all the directories it creates. XX- No rpmlint output. [thomas@tusdell mock-test]$ rpmlint drumstick-* drumstick.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.2.99-0.1.svn20100107 ['0.2.99-0.1.fc12.20100107svn', '0.2.99-0.1.20100107svn'] drumstick-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation drumstick-examples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [thomas@tusdell srpm-review-test]$ rpmlint drumstick.spec drumstick-0.2.99-0.1.fc13.20100107svn.src.rpm Error checking signature of drumstick-0.2.99-0.1.fc13.20100107svn.src.rpm: drumstick-0.2.99-0.1.fc13.20100107svn.src.rpm: (SHA1) DSA sha1 md5 (GPG) NOT OK (MISSING KEYS:GPG#1634f842) 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. SHOULD Items: OK- Should build in mock. OK- Should build on all supported archs OK- Should have sane scriptlets. OK- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK- Should package latest version NN- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Obsoletes and Provides are reviewed and sane. Issues: 1. You might fix the incoherent version in %changelog. The rest of rpmlint output can be ignored. APPROVED -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
> 1. You might fix the incoherent version in %changelog. The guidelines for disttag usage explicitly say to omit the disttag from the changelog, and yet AFAIK it's considered best practice to put non-numeric stuff AFTER the disttag. I could use 0.2.20100107svn.fc13 instead (i.e. put the disttag first), but the question is, should I really? AFAICT this is just rpmlint not being smart enough.
Well, rdieter told me on IRC that the packaging guidelines recommend the 0.2.20100107svn.fc13 format, so I'll use that one (I'll change it after import).
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: drumstick Short Description: C++/Qt4 wrapper around the ALSA library sequencer Owners: kkofler Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: tuxbrewr (This package was renamed from aseqmm.)
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Imported, built for Rawhide. aseqmm retired in devel and requested to be blocked from dist-f13.