Spec URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mingw-libvorbis.spec SRPM URL: http://kalev.fedorapeople.org/mingw-libvorbis-1.3.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Ogg Vorbis is a fully open, non-proprietary, patent- and royalty-free, general-purpose compressed audio format for audio and music at fixed and variable bitrates from 16 to 128 kbps/channel. This package contains the MinGW Windows cross compiled libvorbis library.
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3204429
This is an unoffical review of mingw-libvorbis package. I'm still looking for a Sponsor. rpmlint mingw-libvorbis-1.3.2-1.fc15.src.rpm mingw-libvorbis.spec ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-libvorbis-1.3.2-1.fc15.noarch.rpm ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/mingw32-libvorbis-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc15.noarch.rpm mingw-libvorbis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ogg -> Egg, Org, Soggy mingw-libvorbis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitrates -> nitrates, bit rates, bit-rates mingw-libvorbis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kbps -> bps, kips, k bps mingw-libvorbis.src: E: changelog-time-in-future 2011-07-17 mingw32-libvorbis.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ogg -> Egg, Org, Soggy mingw32-libvorbis.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitrates -> nitrates, bit rates, bit-rates mingw32-libvorbis.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kbps -> bps, kips, k bps mingw32-libvorbis.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2011-07-17 mingw32-libvorbis-debuginfo.noarch: E: changelog-time-in-future 2011-07-17 mingw32-libvorbis-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings. + rpmlint errors are false positives here. + The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + The spec file name match the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding native Fedora package + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: c870b9bd5858a0ecb5275c14486d9554 libvorbis-1.3.2.tar.gz c870b9bd5858a0ecb5275c14486d9554 /home/pawel/rpmbuild/SOURCES/libvorbis-1.3.2.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel Fedora MinGW guidelines allow headers in main package n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files Fedora MinGW guidelines allow .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8
This is an informal review * MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming [ FIX ] Guidelines Check rpmlint output for mingw-libvorbis-1.3.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Check rpmlint output for mingw-libvorbis-1.3.2-1.fc15.rpm * MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ OK ] * Must: Spec file matches base package [ OK ] * Must: License must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [ OK ] * Must: License in spec must match actual license [ OK ] * Must: License file included in %doc [ FIX ] Note : Include the LICENSE file in the %doc section * Must: Spec file written in American English [ OK ] * Must: Tar ball matches upstream [ OK ] * Must: Package successfully builds binary RPMs [ FIX ] Koji build -(f14) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3204926 - Note : Failure to Build f14 Package Koji build -(f15) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3204924 - Note : Build OK * Must: No duplicate files [ OK ] * Must: Macro use must be consistant [ OK ] Thou, for example: %dir %{python_sitelib}/pynag Can be written as %dir %{python_sitelib}/%{name} * Must: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} [ FIX ] * Must: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 [ OK ]
Actually, the naming is OK. The LICENSE file is named COPYING in this package. This is OK. The other documents included in the package really don't have any specific use for a Fedora install and don't really need to be included in the package. (Packagers discretion.) The F14 build failure issue could be addressed. The error occurs becuase F14 curently has mingw32-filesystem Ver. 64 F15 has Ver. 68, does this package specifically require Ver. 68 of mingw32-filesystem? If not this problem can be solved by de-versioning the BuildRequires for mingw32-filesystem >= 68 %install rm -rf %{buildroot} is only required on EPEL Not required on F14/F15/Devel http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
(In reply to comment #4) > The LICENSE file is named COPYING in this package. This is OK. The other > documents included in the package really don't have any specific use for a > Fedora install and don't really need to be included in the package. (Packagers > discretion.) The MinGW packages are somewhat special, because they are essentially just copies of the native packages, built for a different target. Because of that, we try to avoid packaging up documentation files that would otherwise just duplicate what's in the corresponding native packages. See e.g. the section on man and info files: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Manpages_and_info_files > The F14 build failure issue could be addressed. The error occurs becuase F14 > curently has mingw32-filesystem Ver. 64 F15 has Ver. 68, does this package > specifically require Ver. 68 of mingw32-filesystem? If not this problem can be > solved by de-versioning the BuildRequires for mingw32-filesystem >= 68 Yeah, mingw32-filesystem >= 68 is actually needed for generating correct Provides and Requires for this package. Thanks for the reviews, everybody!
(In reply to comment #4) > Actually, the naming is OK. Now that I do further research shouldn't the name be mingw32-libvorbis so that it matches the naming scheme of the mingw32 packages? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Package_naming Package naming Built packages should be named by prefixing the upstream package name with mingw32- Source packages can be named starting with mingw- in order to more easily support a transition to the new MinGW guidelines which mandate that naming. Otherwise two separate package repositories must be set up ("mingw32-foo" and "mingw-foo") with one needing to be marked EOL.
(In reply to comment #6) > Built packages should be named by prefixing the upstream package name with > mingw32- These are the binary rpms, upstream name (libvorbis) prefixed with mingw32-: mingw32-libvorbis-1.3.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm mingw32-libvorbis-debuginfo-1.3.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm > Source packages can be named starting with mingw- in order to more easily > support a transition to the new MinGW guidelines which mandate that naming. > Otherwise two separate package repositories must be set up ("mingw32-foo" and > "mingw-foo") with one needing to be marked EOL. This is the source package, starts with mingw- like the guidelines say: mingw-libvorbis-1.3.2-1.fc16.src.rpm The guidelines aren't particularly well worded here, but the idea is that in the future (F17 timeframe) we are going to build TWO sets of binary rpms from one source package, that's what the "support a transition to the new MinGW guidelines" sentence in guidelines means. mingw-libfoo.src.rpm mingw32-libfoo.rpm mingw64-libfoo.rpm
Works for me. Thanks for helping me understand the process with mingw packages. = Approved =
Thanks for the review, Randy! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-libvorbis Short Description: MinGW Windows libvorbis library Owners: kalev pfor elmarco Branches: f15 InitialCC:
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-libvorbis Short Description: MinGW Windows libvorbis library Owners: kalev pfor Branches: f15 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package imported and built for rawhide and F15; closing the ticket.