https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3491 tuxor1337(a)web.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |3493 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3491 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sergio(a)serjux.com --- Comment #1 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 2015-01-06 20:54:20 CET --- Hi, are you maintainer of any package ? , i.e, are you already sponsored and have commit write permissions ? I contribute to this packages on atrpms.net [1] [1] http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1706#c2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3491 --- Comment #3 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 2015-01-06 21:13:25 CET --- Sorry. Now is not a good time to sponsor anyone, because rpmfusion have to migrate to other infrastructure . Also I'm not a sponsor . So perhaps the better is me make the request review and you review it, but not before weekend, I don't have time before . Thanks, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3491 --- Comment #5 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 2015-07-02 16:24:51 CEST --- Hi, Sorry for delay , as you may know we still not have a new rpmfusion infrastructure , so I propose swap the rules, submit and you review the package, Do you accept the swap ? SPEC: http://www.serjux.com/rpms/libmp3splt.spec SRPM: http://www.serjux.com/rpms/libmp3splt-0.9.2-1.fc21.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3491 MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mgansser(a)alice.de --- Comment #7 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2015-07-03 09:27:48 CEST --- could you please put the documentation files i a doc subpackage. Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1628160 bytes in 195 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3491 --- Comment #9 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2015-07-03 14:45:32 CEST --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 1628160 bytes in 195 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== 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]: 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)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/martin/rpmbuild/SPECS/libmp3splt/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/libmp3splt0, /usr/include/libmp3splt [-]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/libmp3splt0, /usr/include/libmp3splt [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [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 %license. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmp3splt-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1720320 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmp3splt-0.9.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm libmp3splt-devel-0.9.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm libmp3splt-0.9.2-1.fc21.src.rpm libmp3splt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ogg -> egg, org, Gog libmp3splt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filenames -> file names, file-names, filaments libmp3splt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cddb -> Cd libmp3splt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gt k libmp3splt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libmp3splt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ogg -> egg, org, Gog libmp3splt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filenames -> file names, file-names, filaments libmp3splt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cddb -> Cd libmp3splt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gt k 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libmp3splt-debuginfo-0.9.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libmp3splt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ogg -> egg, org, boggy libmp3splt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filenames -> file names, file-names, filaments libmp3splt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cddb -> Cd libmp3splt.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gt k libmp3splt.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmp3splt.so.0.0.9 /lib64/libdl.so.2 libmp3splt-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Requires -------- libmp3splt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libFLAC.so.8()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libid3tag.so.0()(64bit) libltdl.so.7()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmad.so.0()(64bit) libmp3splt.so.0()(64bit) libogg.so.0()(64bit) libpcre.so.1()(64bit) libvorbis.so.0()(64bit) libvorbisfile.so.3()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmp3splt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libmp3splt libmp3splt.so.0()(64bit) libsplt_flac.so.0()(64bit) libsplt_mp3.so.0()(64bit) libsplt_ogg.so.0()(64bit) Provides -------- libmp3splt: libmp3splt libmp3splt(x86-64) libmp3splt.so.0()(64bit) libsplt_flac.so.0()(64bit) libsplt_mp3.so.0()(64bit) libsplt_ogg.so.0()(64bit) libmp3splt-devel: libmp3splt-devel libmp3splt-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libmp3splt) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/mp3splt/libmp3splt-0.9.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 30eed64fce58cb379b7cc6a0d8e545579cb99d0f0f31eb00b9acc8aaa1b035dc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 30eed64fce58cb379b7cc6a0d8e545579cb99d0f0f31eb00b9acc8aaa1b035dc Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rn ../SRPMS/libmp3splt-0.9.2-1.fc22.src.rpm -m fedora-21-x86_64-rpmfusion_free Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 please fix the marked issue with the documentation files. please take the macor %name instead of libmp3splt in the file section. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3491 Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3491 --- Comment #12 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 2015-07-06 07:52:29 CEST --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: libmp3splt Short Description: Libraries for the mp3Splt project Owners: sergiomb Branches: f21 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: free -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3491 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.