Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk-0.1.0-3.20110614.fc14.src.rpm Description: Stop chasing your music across different machines, services and websites. It's time to take the work out of "play". If the song you want to listen to is in your local library, it just plays. If the song is on a remote machine, it just plays. If the song is on the web, or available from your subscription service, it just plays. By abstracting a piece of content's metadata from its file location, users can easily share playlists, listening history and more. It's sort of like Wonka Vision, Tomahawk will reassemble it on the other side. OK, maybe that's not a good analogy... but it's just as delicious.
$ rpmlint *.rpm x86_64/*.rpm tomahawk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsus tomahawk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlists -> play lists, play-lists, playlets tomahawk.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %{version} tomahawk.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{version} tomahawk.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{snap} tomahawk.src:34: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(qtweetlib) tomahawk.src: W: invalid-url Source0: tomahawk-0.1-20110614.tar.bz2 tomahawk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsus tomahawk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlists -> play lists, play-lists, playlets tomahawk.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libtomahawk_sipzeroconf.so libtomahawk_sipzeroconf.so tomahawk.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libtomahawk_portfwd.so libtomahawk_portfwd.so tomahawk.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libtomahawklib.so libtomahawklib.so tomahawk.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtomahawklib.so exit.5 tomahawk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomahawk tomahawk-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/tomahawk-0.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/thirdparty/liblastfm2/src/lastfm/AbstractType 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 11 warnings.
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk-0.2.1-1.fc15.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Jun 14 2011 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 0.1.0-3.20110614 - 20110614 snapshot - bundle jreen/qtweetlib (for now)
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk-0.2.1-1.fc15.src.rpm %changelog * Tue Aug 16 2011 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 0.2.1-1 - 0.2.1
(In reply to comment #2) > - 20110614 snapshot > - bundle jreen/qtweetlib (for now) Is there explicit exception granted? Why? I'm prefer see it as separate package to link against in in upcoming qutIM update. I also think package jreen...
OK, if someone else needs it, I can package it, though it's a little annoying the upstream here has no formal releases as far as I can tell. so, will end up having to package a git snapshot.
There seems to be missing some build requires: qca2-devel and maybe boost-devel too
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk-0.2.1-2.fc15.src.rpm %changelog * Wed Aug 17 2011 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 0.2.1-2 - unbundle jreen, BR: jreen-devel - BR: boost-devel qca2-devel - Requires: qca-ossl
See bug #731456 for jreen review
f16 scratch build (using bundled jreen for now, to allow non-bootstrapped building): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3280479
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk-0.2.3-1.fc15.src.rpm %changelog * Thu Sep 01 2011 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 0.2.3-1 - 0.2.3
Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk-0.3.0-1.fc16.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Nov 14 2011 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 0.3.0-1 - 0.3.0
http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk.spec http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/tomahawk/tomahawk-0.3.3-1.fc16.src.rpm %changelog * Fri Jan 06 2012 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 0.3.3-1 - 0.3.3
Review below: MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] rpmlint -iv tomahawk.spec tomahawk.spec: I: checking-url http://download.tomahawk-player.org/tomahawk-0.3.3.tar.bz2 (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -iv tomahawk-0.3.3-2*.rpm tomahawk.x86_64: I: checking tomahawk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. tomahawk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US playlists -> play lists, play-lists, stylists The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. tomahawk.x86_64: I: checking-url http://tomahawk-player.org/ (timeout 10 seconds) tomahawk.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libtomahawk_siptwitter.so libtomahawk_siptwitter.so The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or lib<libname>-<major>.so. tomahawk.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libtomahawk_sipjabber.so libtomahawk_sipjabber.so The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or lib<libname>-<major>.so. tomahawk.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libtomahawk_sipzeroconf.so libtomahawk_sipzeroconf.so The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or lib<libname>-<major>.so. tomahawk.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libtomahawk_sipgoogle.so libtomahawk_sipgoogle.so The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or lib<libname>-<major>.so. tomahawk.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libtomahawk_portfwd.so libtomahawk_portfwd.so The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or lib<libname>-<major>.so. tomahawk.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libtomahawklib.so libtomahawklib.so The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or lib<libname>-<major>.so. tomahawk.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtomahawklib.so exit.5 This library package calls exit() or _exit(), probably in a non-fork() context. Doing so from a library is strongly discouraged - when a library function calls exit(), it prevents the calling program from handling the error, reporting it to the user, closing files properly, and cleaning up any state that the program has. It is preferred for the library to return an actual error code and let the calling program decide how to handle the situation. tomahawk.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomahawk Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 4 warnings. Not so sure about this one, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=235486 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=222388#c4 for reference OK still MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK, GPLv3 MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] OK MUST: 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.[4] OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. src.rpm: 0ee6ff7cd7fcf2dd01db6772902efbb4 upstream: 0ee6ff7cd7fcf2dd01db6772902efbb4 OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] Depends on Jreen BZ #731456 OK 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] OK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK 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. [10] OK MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] OK 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [12] NA MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [13] OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [15] OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] OK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] OK 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. [19] OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [21] OK MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] OK 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [22] OK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23] OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] OK SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do. 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. [25] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] OK SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [28] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] OK SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [21] 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30] 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. [31] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32] References to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines This has been built and tested on fedora-16-x86_64 grabbing build deps from koji/fedpkg/bugzilla where needed (libechonest,jreen,iris/qjdns,qtweetlib) and rebuilding. Works for me.
please add qca-ossl to the BR, it is needed for some jabber accounts to authenticate properly and is so a runtime dep for tomahawk according to the tomahawk devs.
(In reply to comment #14) > please add qca-ossl to the BR, it is needed for some jabber accounts to > authenticate properly and is so a runtime dep for tomahawk according to the > tomahawk devs. ^nvm that, it is a BR, sorry for the noise
If it's a runtime dependency, it needs to be a Requires, not a BuildRequires.
jreen already Requires: qca-ossl so it'll get pulled in indirectly, but adding here explicitly wouldn't be wrong either.
Starting to wonder if we should just add the qca-oosl dep to qca2 (keeping in mind bootstrapping issues, of course).
Anyway, enough rambling, I'll be sure to add the dep before doing any official builds. Any other review blockers to consider?
No others, approving.
thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: tomahawk Short Description: The Social Music Player Owners: rdieter Branches: f16 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
imported, thanks all! (waiting for jreen before doing any builds)
clementine-0.7.1-4.fc16.1,tomahawk-0.3.3-4.fc16,libechonest-1.2.1-1.fc16,qca-cyrus-sasl-2.0.0-0.3.beta3.fc16,jreen-1.0.1-4.fc16,iris-1.0.0-0.10.20110904svn812.fc16,qtweetlib-0.3.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clementine-0.7.1-4.fc16.1,tomahawk-0.3.3-4.fc16,libechonest-1.2.1-1.fc16,qca-cyrus-sasl-2.0.0-0.3.beta3.fc16,jreen-1.0.1-4.fc16,iris-1.0.0-0.10.20110904svn812.fc16,qtweetlib-0.3.0-1.fc16
clementine-0.7.1-4.fc16.1, tomahawk-0.3.3-4.fc16, libechonest-1.2.1-1.fc16, qca-cyrus-sasl-2.0.0-0.3.beta3.fc16, jreen-1.0.1-4.fc16, iris-1.0.0-0.10.20110904svn812.fc16, qtweetlib-0.3.0-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.