Spec URL: http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/decibel-audio-player/1.08/decibel-audio-player.spec SRPM URL: http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/decibel-audio-player/1.08/decibel-audio-player-1.08-1.f15.src.rpm Description: Decibel is an audio player that aims at being very straightforward to use by means of a very clean and user friendly interface. It is especially targeted at GNOME and will follow, as closely as possible, the GNOME HIG. It makes use of the GStreamer library to read audio files. THIS PACKAGE HAS BEEN ORPHANED AND THEN DEPRECATED: """This package was retired on 2011-07-25 due to it being unable to build this package for multiple releases (FTBFS).""" [lzap@lzapx 1.08]$ rpmlint decibel-audio-player-1.08-1.fc16.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [lzap@lzapx 1.08]$ rpmlint decibel-audio-player-1.08-1.f15.src.rpm decibel-audio-player.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} decibel-audio-player.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} decibel-audio-player.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %patch0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Just some comments: - Drop defattr, it is no longer necessary - If you don't go for EPEL 5, you can drop the buildroot definition, the clean section and the rm in the install section - Consider using a loop to create directories and install the icons %{_datadir}/%{name} could replace %dir %{_datadir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/%{name}/pix %{_datadir}/%{name}/res %{_datadir}/%{name}/src as far as I can see - The RPM changelog is intended for changes in packaging, not within the software - Man pages should not be marked as documentation - Was "vendor" used in desktop files in older versions of this package? If not, it should not be used. - Consider harmonizing the style of your sed invocations I'm not sure about those shell scripts that act as starters. Are they really necessary?
When using sed, you are hardcoding /usr/bin. Use the %{_bindir} macro instead. (In reply to comment #1) > Just some comments: > > - Drop defattr, it is no longer necessary It *can* be dropped, but it does no harm, so IHMO there is no reason to drop it. It's still needed on EPEL5. > - Man pages should not be marked as documentation Correct is: They will be marked as %doc automatically, so there is no need to mark them in the spec.
Christoph, defattr was necessary in EL 4 but not 5, I think: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions There was an e-mail on some mailing list that compared that in detail, but I can't find it right now. Of course it does no harm.
Any news, Lukáš?
Christoph and Volker, thanks for your help here. I was waiting for Debrashi to confirm me I am free to take this package. I am now :-) All your remarks incorporated, except: - Was "vendor" used in desktop files in older versions of this package? If not, it should not be used. I did not change this, its from original version of the package. I'd rather keep it if this is not an issue. - I'm not sure about those shell scripts that act as starters. Are they really necessary? I dont follow here, you mean %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_bindir}/%{name}-remote right? They both work and I use them quite often. Please elaborate if you mean something different. - When using sed, you are hardcoding /usr/bin. Use the %{_bindir} macro instead. Do you mean hardcoding of /usb/bin/sed invocation, or hardcoding the path in the script itself? Regarding harmonizing - I think its correct, I need to do the first sed in-place, while 2nd and 3rd are used when copying the shell script to the correct place. I have also added BuildRequires: sed. I am overwriting original files, use the same links to see it. [lzap@lzapx noarch]$ rpmlint decibel-audio-player-1.08-1.fc16.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [lzap@lzapx SRPMS]$ rpmlint decibel-audio-player-1.08-1.f15.src.rpm decibel-audio-player.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} decibel-audio-player.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings Thanks!
Added tracker for the audio spin.
This was orphaned right?
Yes, the package was orphaned.
I think I can speak for Christoph here, that he was referring to: sed 'bla' %{_bindir}/blah instead of sed 'bla' /usr/bin/blah Please write a meaningful changelog and bump your release when you change something. This makes work a lot easier for reviewers. Don't BR sed, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Forget my comment about the scripts, it is all fine. I must have been very tired when I wrote about the harmonization, so you can basically forget about that too. One thing though: I suggest to use "sed 'expression' filename" instead of cating into sed. Don't use the install macro %{__install}. Just make it "install".
All fixed, changelog added and release bumped to 3 describing all changes I made. http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/decibel-audio-player/1.08-3/
I'll take the review.
I think you also need python-imaging (src/modules/Covers.py). Can you point me to the part that needs pygtk2-libglade?
Hey, I was under impression that loadGlade function still needs it, but after reading https://bugs.launchpad.net/decibel-audio-player/+bug/799738 I understand its just a naming. Removing. And adding imaging, thanks. I did hand review of all imports, did not find anything else. If there is some automated tool, I'd be happy to apply it and see all the imports. http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/decibel-audio-player/1.08-4/
On future comments, please always post the direct link to spec file and SRPM. The fedora-review utility requires that too.
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop- file-install file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST The spec file handles locales properly. [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Please use the _prefix macro on your two sed invocations. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint decibel-audio-player-1.08-4.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint decibel-audio-player-1.08-4.fc18.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /media/speicher1/makerpm/decibel-audio-player-1.08.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : e8ebaf819c198ff9951903e7c4056aef MD5SUM upstream package : e8ebaf819c198ff9951903e7c4056aef [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [-]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop- file-install file if it is a GUI application. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Please use the _prefix macro on your two sed invocations. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins:
Thanks for the review! On the first sight, I am not able to find what is wrong with my desktop file, will investigate more tomorrow. Btw did not know about fedora-review - thanks :-)
It's the name! Your's is called fedora-%{name}.desktop, but it should be %{name}.desktop.
Both fixed, thank you for your paticence. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4090292 http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/decibel-audio-player/1.08-5/decibel-audio-player.spec http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/fedora-packaging/decibel-audio-player/1.08-5/decibel-audio-player-1.08-5.fc18.src.rpm
This package is APPROVED!
Thank you Volker. The package was ORPHANED. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: decibel-audio-player Short Description: straightforward music player Owners: lzap Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC:
Unorphaned devel and f15, please take ownership in pkgdb and submit a Package Change request for f16 and f17.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: decibel-audio-player New Branches: f16 f17 Owners: lzap rakesh InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thanks. https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5199
decibel-audio-player-1.08-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/decibel-audio-player-1.08-5.fc17
decibel-audio-player-1.08-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
decibel-audio-player-1.08-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.