lv2-mda-plugins is a LV2 port of the MDA VST plugins This project exists only in SVN and has done for quite some time. It is still under active development by one of the co-authors of the LV2 standard. SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins-0-0.1.svn3580.fc16.src.rpm rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*.rpm lv2-mdala-plugins.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phaser -> phase, phrase, phases lv2-mdala-plugins.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reverb -> revere, revers, revert lv2-mdala-plugins.src: W: invalid-url Source0: lv2-mdala-plugins-0-svn3580.tar.bz2 lv2-mdala-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phaser -> phase, phrase, phases lv2-mdala-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reverb -> revere, revers, revert 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
A minor update SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins-0-0.2.svn3580.fc16.src.rpm
I'll take this review. Thanks for swapping with me. Now I get to learn what LV2, MDA, and VST stand for. :-)
Here are a few preliminary comments. First, the BuildRoot tag is not necessary on Fedora. Second, it appears that README does not need to have its line endings converted, and neither README nor COPYING need to be converted to UTF-8. Third, it looks like the source files are not being compiled with RPM_OPT_FLAGS. Is that right? If I'm reading the docs right, I think you want to configure like this: CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" ./waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir} Fourth, I'm not familiar with waf. Is it wise to use the shipped version, instead of the version in the Fedora waf package? +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: lv2-mdala-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US phaser -> phase, phrase, phases lv2-mdala-plugins.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reverb -> revere, revers, revert lv2-mdala-plugins.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: lv2-mdala-plugins-0-svn3580.tar.bz2 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [=] package meets the packaging guidelines: with the possible exception of the RPM_OPT_FLAGS issue noted above [+] package uses a Fedora approved license [+] license field matches the actual license [=] license file is included in %doc: the license file actually included is the GPL v2 license. See if upstream will update that to the GPL v3 license text. [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64) [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [=] query upstream for license text: see above [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386 [+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64 [=] package functions as described: did not test [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts
Hi Jerry, thanks for the review! I've removed the README form the encoding fix and dropped the buildroot tag. RPM_OPT_FLAGS and %{optflags} are interchangeable [1] From what I know the waf is not so concerned with backwards compatibility as other build tools (such as cmake) and recommends shipping the waf script. There are no clear guidelines on this - the version of waf used here is actually earlier than the one in f16, so I will leave as is. I have contacted the author with regards to the incorrect license file, stay tuned. thanks Brendan [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS
(In reply to comment #4) > RPM_OPT_FLAGS and %{optflags} are interchangeable [1] Errr, yeah, I knew that. I don't know how I overlooked that %{optflags}. Must be time to go see the eye doctor again... > I have contacted the author with regards to the incorrect license file, stay > tuned. OK, thanks.
The License file has been updated in SVN however the author has expressed some misgivings about packaging pre-release, so I will respect his wishes. This review can be put on hold until further notice, ( a release is imminent however)
Hi Jerry, this may be on hold for a while. I have this other LV@ plugin if interested bug 760270 cheers
OK - upstream has officially released this: SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0.fc17.src.rpm ta
I'm getting an HTTP 404 on that SRPM URL.
My apologies: SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm thanks
No problem. It's not like I've never done that. :-) There is no %changelog entry for the new release. I couldn't tell if the right CFLAGS were being used for compilation, so I added -v to the waf build invocation. They aren't. The compiler is being invoked like this (plus some -I and -D options): /usr/lib/ccache/g++ -O0 -g -fshow-column -fPIC <filename>.cpp The file COPYING is ASCII with Unix line endings, so the sed and iconv invocations in %prep create an exact duplicate of the original file. rpm -q --provides lv2-mdala-plugins shows a bunch of .so files (Ambience.so, Bandisto.so, etc.). Is that correct, or should those be filtered out? Everything else looks okay.
SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins.spec SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Thanks again. Changelog updated. I have updated the wscript to honour Fedora coimpiler flags and removed the line encoding script and left the verbose flag in for good measure The .so's are actually the plugin binaries themselves and are required
Sorry for the delay. It's crunch time at work. That takes care of the last of my concerns, so this package is APPROVED.
Brendan: ping.
Brendan, are you out there?
Sorry James, been a bit crazy mine end workwise - will jump on this ASAP. Thanks for the review!
Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: lv2-mdala-plugins Short Description: LV2 port of the MDA VST plugins Owners: bsjones Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0-2.fc18
lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0-2.fc17
lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
lv2-mdala-plugins-1.0.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.