SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/opusfile.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/opusfile-0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm %description libopusfile provides a high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files. It includes: * Support for all files with at least one Opus stream (including multichannel files or Ogg files where Opus is muxed with something else). * Full support, including seeking, for chained files. * A simple stereo downmixing API (allowing chained files to be decoded with a single output format, even if the channel count changes). * Support for reading from a file, memory buffer, or over HTTP(S) (including seeking). * Support for both random access and streaming data sources. koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4654003
Updated to 0.2 SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/opusfile-0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
Hi Peter, this package is APPROVED. Nice job. If you have time could you have a quick look at bug 870184 Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [x] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package devel [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS /review-opusfile/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 5 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: opusfile-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm opusfile-0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm opusfile-devel-0.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm opusfile-0.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm opusfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multichannel -> multiplicand opusfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US muxed -> mixed, mused, maxed opusfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US downmixing -> down mixing, down-mixing, downsizing opusfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multichannel -> multiplicand opusfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US muxed -> mixed, mused, maxed opusfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US downmixing -> down mixing, down-mixing, downsizing 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint opusfile-devel opusfile opusfile-debuginfo opusfile-devel.x86_64: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US opusfile.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopusfile.so.0.0.1 linux-vdso.so.1 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- opusfile-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): opusfile-devel-0.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libopusfile.so.0()(64bit) opusfile(x86-64) = 0.2-1.fc16 pkgconfig pkgconfig(ogg) >= 1.3 pkgconfig(openssl) pkgconfig(opus) >= 1.0.1 opusfile-0.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libogg.so.0()(64bit) libopus.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- opusfile-debuginfo-0.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: opusfile-debuginfo = 0.2-1.fc16 opusfile-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.2-1.fc16 opusfile-devel-0.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: opusfile-devel = 0.2-1.fc16 opusfile-devel(x86-64) = 0.2-1.fc16 pkgconfig(opusfile) = 0.2 opusfile-0.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm: libopusfile.so.0()(64bit) opusfile = 0.2-1.fc16 opusfile(x86-64) = 0.2-1.fc16 MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/opus/opusfile-0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b4a678b3b6c4adfb6aff1f67ef658becfe146ea7c7ff228e99543762171557f9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b4a678b3b6c4adfb6aff1f67ef658becfe146ea7c7ff228e99543762171557f9 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-16-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n opusfile
Thanks for the review. I'll do my best with the other one but time is quite tight atm New Package GIT Request ======================= Package Name: opus-tools Short Description: A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-17 F-18 InitialCC:
Summary name and SCM request name don't match.
facepalm! Apologies New Package GIT Request ======================= Package Name: opusfile Short Description: A high-level API for decoding and seeking within .opus files Owners: pbrobinson Branches: F-17 F-18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: opusfile New Branches: epel7 Owners: pbrobinson