Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 597596
Review Request: alsa-patch-bay - Simple GUI for ALSA sequencers
Last modified: 2011-01-19 17:50:30 EST
Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~csimpson/alsa-patch-bay.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~csimpson/alsa-patch-bay-1.0.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description: alsa-patch-bay is a simple, plain GUI tool for patching together ALSA sequencers.
I found this tool during the Planet CCRMA days and fell in love with it, but it hasn't been maintained. I've got a github (http://github.com/MostAwesomeDude/alsa-patch-bay) with all the patches, and I'm waiting for upstream to get back to me on this.
My SPEC file is probably pretty iffy; I am very new to RPM as opposed to DEB, and auto-br-rpmbuild appears to have been a bit too eager in picking deps. Additionally, this package can be built against GTKMM and JACK in a mix'n'match; I should depend on (GTKMM || FLTK) && (ALSA || JACK) instead of what I've got now.
I should add that this is my first package review request in Fedora, and that I am looking for a sponsor, per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join .
I read more docs and did some rpmlint. I have the unstripped binary issue, and also the no-documentation issue. These are all warnings, but I should fix them once I know how. Incidentally, no documentation exists on these.
I also actually tried installing this RPM, and it appears to work. I'm kind of amazed, actually. Anyway, links to the new stuff:
*** Bug 597592 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
And now it builds on koji! Amazing what can get done when there's a take-home final sitting above one's head. Links:
Just taking a look at some older review tickets.
This one builds but fails to install:
Error: Package: alsa-patch-bay-1.0.0-3.fc15.x86_64 (/alsa-patch-bay-1.0.0-3.fc15.x86_64)
Any reason why you specify all of the library dependencies manually instead of letting rpm figure them out for you? You really should never need to do anything remotely like this:
Requires: alsa.so.0 fltk.so.0 libasound.so.2 libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9) libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.1) libfltk.so.1.1 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.0) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.1) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9) rtld(GNU_HASH)
rpm will happily figure out all of those (and, indeed, the currect ones) for itself.
We don't usually usually ship libtool archives unless there's some specific reason to do so. Do things break if you remove the two .la files?
No response in two months; closing.