Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/libclastfm.spec SRPM URL: http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/libclastfm-0.4-0.1.20111214gitcc78dde5.fc17.src.rpm Description: libclastfm is an unofficial C-API for the Last.fm web service written with libcurl. It was written because the official CBS Interactive Last.fm library requires Nokia QT, which is usually not desired when using Gnome based distros. This library supports much more than basic scrobble submission. You can send shouts, fetch Album covers and much more. Due to the naming conflict with the official last.fm library, this library will install as "libclastfm".
I will review your package.
Here is the review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. libclastfm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fm -> FM, Fm, gm libclastfm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fm -> FM, Fm, gm libclastfm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl, lib-curl, curlicue libclastfm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distros -> bistros, distress libclastfm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrobble -> scribble, scrabble, Scrabble libclastfm.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} libclastfm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libclastfm-20111214gitcc78dde5.tar.bz2 libclastfm.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fm -> FM, Fm, gm libclastfm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fm -> FM, Fm, gm libclastfm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl, lib-curl, curlicue libclastfm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US distros -> bistros, distress libclastfm.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrobble -> scribble, scrabble, Scrabble libclastfm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libclastfm-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/libclastfm/src/md5.c 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings. These warnings can be safely ignored. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [=] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. See below [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] 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. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5 sum=9d6ba4b9f5209b42ab2170d37928a830 for both the embedded source archive in the SRPM and an archive geerated from upstream's VCS [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] 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. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] 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. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] 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. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Juste two suggestions, before approving this package: - since autoconf is already required by libtool, you could remove autoconf from the BuildRequires - unless you intend to maintain libclastfm for EPEL 5, you should remove the %clean section in you .spec file, as well as all the BuildRoot cleans and the BuildRoot tag: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
Thanks for the review. (In reply to comment #2) > > Juste two suggestions, before approving this package: > - since autoconf is already required by libtool, you could remove autoconf from > the BuildRequires Ok, do you want me to change this now or can I do this after you approved the package? > - unless you intend to maintain libclastfm for EPEL 5, you should remove the > %clean section in you .spec file, as well as all the BuildRoot cleans and the > BuildRoot tag: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag The guidelines don't say I should remove it bug I could. I like keeping these things around for backwards compatibility.
> Ok, do you want me to change this now or can I do this after you approved the > package? I trust you to fix it at the package import :) This package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libclastfm Short Description: Unofficial C-API for the Last.fm web service Owners: cwickert Branches: F16 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libclastfm-0.4-0.1.20111214gitcc78dde5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libclastfm-0.4-0.1.20111214gitcc78dde5.fc16
Thanks for the review!
libclastfm-0.4-0.1.20111214gitcc78dde5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.