Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/libsidplayfp.spec SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jwrdegoede/libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc15.src.rpm Description: This library provides support for playing SID music modules originally created on Commodore 64 and compatibles. It contains a processing engine for MOS 6510 machine code and MOS 6581 Sound Interface Device (SID) chip output. It is used by music player programs like SIDPLAY and several plug-ins for versatile audio players. Fedora Account System Username: jwrdegoede
*** Bug 949165 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libsidplayfp-devel-doc Unsure whether you really want someone to be able to install the documentation without pulling in devel. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)" Please report to upstream about incorrect address but this isn't a blocker. [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 according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [-]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 5 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm libsidplayfp-devel-1.0.1-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm libsidplayfp-devel-doc-1.0.1-2.fc18.noarch.rpm libsidplayfp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libsidplayfp-devel-doc libsidplayfp-devel libsidplay fp libsidplayfp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsidplayfp.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libstilview.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libsidplayfp-devel-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libsidplayfp-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libsidplayfp(x86-64) libsidplayfp.so.3()(64bit) libstilview.so.0()(64bit) libsidplayfp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- libsidplayfp-devel-doc: libsidplayfp-devel-doc libsidplayfp-devel: libsidplayfp-devel libsidplayfp-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libsidplayfp) pkgconfig(libstilview) libsidplayfp: libsidplayfp libsidplayfp(x86-64) libsidplayfp.so.3()(64bit) libstilview.so.0()(64bit) MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/sidplay-residfp/libsidplayfp-1.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9958ac9ef7079d1d39db9d5a8af982fd32b26d95e2ffbe11f0dc6c76894f18dc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9958ac9ef7079d1d39db9d5a8af982fd32b26d95e2ffbe11f0dc6c76894f18dc Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n libsidplayfp Additional note: I recommend listing the soname explicitly rather than using wildcards so that soname bumps are caught at build time but this is a persnal preference.
Hi, Thanks for the review! (In reply to comment #2) > [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > libsidplayfp-devel-doc Note that the guidelines says "if present", iow the Requires on the main package (or other sub-packages) should be fully-versioned if such a requires is present. I see no reason for any Requires, if people want just the docs to do some reading while studying options for a new project (for example) they should be able to install just the docs. > Additional note: I recommend listing the soname explicitly rather than > using wildcards so that soname bumps are caught at build time but this is a > persnal preference. That is a good idea, I'll make that change in the next version. Regards, Hans
> Note that the guidelines says "if present", iow the Requires on the > main package (or other sub-packages) should be fully-versioned if > such a requires is present. I fear that's not the case, and the "if present" refers to whether subpackages exist. It's just a poorly worded text for a generic check in fedora-review, which treats the fully-versioned dep as a "MUST" and only excludes -debuginfo subpackages. There are other exceptions, however: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package Documentation packages really need not depend on base packages. In this case, it's even a Development Documentation package that doesn't extend the base package (but is for the -devel subpackage).
I don't see any blockers left APPROVED
(In reply to comment #5) > I don't see any blockers left > > APPROVED Thanks for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libsidplayfp Short Description: SID chip music module playing library Owners: jwrdegoede Branches: f17 f18 f19 InitialCC: mschwendt
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc19,sidplayfp-1.0.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc19,sidplayfp-1.0.1-1.fc19
libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc18,sidplayfp-1.0.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc18,sidplayfp-1.0.1-1.fc18
libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc17,sidplayfp-1.0.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc17,sidplayfp-1.0.1-1.fc17
libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc19, sidplayfp-1.0.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc19, sidplayfp-1.0.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc18, sidplayfp-1.0.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
libsidplayfp-1.0.1-2.fc17, sidplayfp-1.0.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.