https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2531 --- Comment #2 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-16 11:56:40 CEST --- (In reply to comment #1) Hi eldermarco. http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc.spec http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.src.rpm $ rpmlint moc-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint moc-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Thank you. -- 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=2531 --- Comment #4 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-19 12:29:53 CEST --- (In reply to comment #3) If I understood fine, I must include %doc files in a '-doc' package ... -- 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=2531 --- Comment #6 from Elder Marco <eldermarco(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-19 15:15:53 CEST --- No, you must add documentation files using the %doc section. In other words, remove the directory $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}: ... %install %make_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/%{name} ... and add the files in the %doc section: ... %files %doc README README_equalizer AUTHORS ChangeLog COPYING config.example keymap.example %_bindir/* %_datadir/%{name}/themes/* %_datadir/doc/%{name}/*.example << remove this line %_datadir/doc/%{name}/README* << remove this line %_datadir/doc/%{name}/THANKS << remove this line %_mandir/*/* %_libdir/moc/decoder_plugins ... You don't need to create a subpackage. -- 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=2531 --- Comment #8 from Elder Marco <eldermarco(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-19 17:28:18 CEST --- Oops, sorry. The spec file is wrong but it is my fault. line 54: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/%{name} The correct is rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc * In the %files section The line %dir %_datadir/%{name} is missing. -- 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=2531 --- Comment #10 from Elder Marco <eldermarco(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-19 19:21:14 CEST --- OK, thanks :) I will do an informal review tomorrow. Unfortunately, I am just a packager not a sponsor. So, I can't sponsor you. -- 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=2531 --- Comment #12 from Elder Marco <eldermarco(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-20 23:54:43 CEST --- This is an informal review since I can't sponsor you. ------------------------ Key: [+] - OK [-] - FIX/Needs work. [x] - Not applicable ------------------------- MUST ITEMS =========== [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint moc-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.src.rpm moc-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.x86_64.rpm moc-debuginfo-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.x86_64.rpm moc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/moc-2.5.0-beta1/decoder_plugins/mp3/xing.h moc-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/moc-2.5.0-beta1/decoder_plugins/mp3/xing.c 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. You can ignore these errors. You don't need to fix them to get this package approved. See ADITIONAL ITEMS below. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet Licensing Guidelines. [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. -- License field in spec file doesn't match the actual license. If you look into the headers of the source code you will see "or (at you option) any" later version. This means GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2 [1]. The files md5.c and md5.h is licensed under GPLv3+. See [2] for more information. [+] 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. -- Add a blank line after 'autoreconf -i' [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. -- sha256sum: 076816da9c6d1e61a386a1dda5f63ee2fc84bc31e9011ef70acc1d391d4c46a6 It is correct, but you can use this URL as Source URL: Source0: ftp://ftp.daper.net/pub/soft/moc/unstable/%{name}-%{version}-beta1.tar.z2 [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [x] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. -- You need to add libtool as BuildRequires. I can't build this package in mock without libtool. [x] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) 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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [x] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] 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 Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [-] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. -- Use %{_datadir}, %{_bindir}, %{_mandir} and %{_libdir} rather than %_datadir, %_bindir, %_mandir and %_libdir [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [x] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [x] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [x] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [x] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. -- Libtool archives (*.la files) should not be included. The may need to removed before packaging. See [3] (second paragraph) for more information. You can find an examples here: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libogg.git/tree/libogg.spec [x] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD ITEMS ============= [x] 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: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. -- You must add libtool as BuildRequires. See MUST ITEMS above. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [x] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [x] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [x] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [x] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. ADITIONAL ITEMS =============== * Add NEWS in %doc; * line 45: %setup -q -n moc-2.5.0-beta1 We can use macros here. Use %{name} instead of moc and %{version} instead of 2.5.0: %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}-beta1 * I think it would be better if we add build dependencies as pkgconfig modules, if possible. For example, the package ncurses-devel provides pkgconfig(ncurses) (run rpm -q --provides ncurses-devel | grep pkgconfig). So, we can use BuildRequires: pkgconfig(ncurses) instead of BuildRequires: ncurses-devel But it is just an idea. You can find an example here: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gpaste.git/tree/gpaste.spec * I think it is better if we add some build options explicitly: %configure --disable-static --without-rcc \ <indentation here>--with-oss --with-alsa --with-jack --with-aac --with-mp3 \ <indentation here>--with-musepack --with-vorbis --with-flac --with-wavpack \ <indentation here>--with-sndfile --with-modplug --with-ffmpeg --with-speex \ <indentation here>--with-samplerate --with-curl * Tell upstream that FSF for files decoder_plugins/mp3/xing.c and decoder_plugins/mp3/xing.h (see the first must item above) is outdated. Or can provide a patch, if you want. * Don't forget to update your changelog. That's all :) ------------------------------------- [1] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging... [2] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging... [3] - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libra... -- 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=2531 --- Comment #14 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-21 12:03:31 CEST --- I forgot ... .spec file and .src package are available always here: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc.spec http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.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=2531 --- Comment #16 from Elder Marco <eldermarco(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-21 15:32:56 CEST --- Hello Stephen, You must install the dependencies. Open a terminal and run $ yum-builddep /path/to/moc.spec Remove the package db4-devel from your system before. These are the same package, but with different versions. -- 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=2531 --- Comment #18 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-21 17:12:24 CEST --- (In reply to comment #17) Done. http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc.spec http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.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=2531 --- Comment #20 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-22 12:19:09 CEST --- (In reply to comment #17) Added a patch to fix FSF address. $ rpmlint moc-debuginfo-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.x86_64.rpm moc-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc.spec http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.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=2531 --- Comment #22 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-22 17:32:45 CEST --- (In reply to comment #21) The patch comes directly from upstream maintainer. Done. http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc.spec http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc-2.5.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.src.rpm Thank you again. Awaiting for your kind reply. -- 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=2531 --- Comment #24 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-28 10:21:54 CET --- (In reply to comment #23) Release number updated. http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc.spec http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc-2.5.0-0.2.beta1.fc17.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=2531 --- Comment #26 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-03-03 19:52:27 CET --- - Removed DESTDIR from %%make_install - Changed source link with a public one - Set up a new macro to define MOC's 'mocp' executable - Added %%{name} prefix to the patch SPEC: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc/moc.spec SRPMS: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc/moc-2.5.0-0.4.beta1.fc18.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=2531 --- Comment #27 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-03-19 20:05:55 CET --- Now, I'm in Fedora Packager Group. I think that everything is ok to complete this review. :) -- 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=2531 --- Comment #29 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-04-05 21:41:16 CEST --- (In reply to comment #28) Hi Gianluca. Thank for your note. http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc/moc.spec http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc/moc-2.5.0-0.5.beta1.fc18.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=2531 --- Comment #31 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-05-20 15:51:59 CEST --- Can someone volunteer to be assigned for the review ? -- 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=2531 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjoern.esser(a)gmail.com --- Comment #33 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-06-07 21:27:57 CEST --- INFO: No upstream for (Source0): moc-2.5.0-beta1.tar.bz2 Why don't you use Source0: http://ftp.daper.net/pub/soft/moc/unstable/%{name}-%{version}-beta1.tar.bz2 ? Will assign for review as soon as my request for joining "cvsextras" was approved, since I'm a fedora-packager already... -- 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=2531 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |bjoern.esser(a)gmail.com |mfusion.org | -- 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=2531 --- Comment #36 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-06-07 23:45:01 CEST --- (In reply to comment #34) This seems a false issue. The http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages says: In fact: $ rpm -q --list moc | grep decoder_plugins /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libffmpeg_decoder.so /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libflac_decoder.so /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libmodplug_decoder.so /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libmp3_decoder.so /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libmusepack_decoder.so /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libsndfile_decoder.so /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libspeex_decoder.so /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libtimidity_decoder.so /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libvorbis_decoder.so /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libwavpack_decoder.so $ ldconfig -p | grep _decoder.so libdirac_decoder.so.0 (libc6,x86-64) => /lib64/libdirac_decoder.so.0 -- 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=2531 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |4 --- Comment #38 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-06-08 13:49:04 CEST --- (In reply to comment #36) Sorry, my bad... was a bit tired yesterday... hope you don't mind... ##### Everything is fine so far. Just one thing: There is not need for explicit Requires: curl, jack-audio-connection-kit, ncurses, speex They are picked up by rpm's automagick Requires. I leave it up to you fixing this in SCM. There are some proposals/remarks as commented in review, too. ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. ---> all fine as discussed above. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). ---> Is that `%global exec` really needed? Up to your decision... [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: 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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 112640 bytes in 8 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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: No rpmlint messages. ===== 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. ---> pre-release 2.5.0 beta1 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. ---> you should ask upstream to update/include license-headers/info from latest GPLv2+ revision. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. ---> there could be %check, but it's quiet exhaustive. Full tests take est. >= 15 min on i7-2860QM [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: moc-2.5.0-0.8.beta1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint moc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- moc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig curl ffmpeg jack-audio-connection-kit libFLAC.so.8()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4)(64bit) libavcodec.so.54()(64bit) libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54)(64bit) libavformat.so.54()(64bit) libavformat.so.54(LIBAVFORMAT_54)(64bit) libavutil.so.52()(64bit) libavutil.so.52(LIBAVUTIL_52)(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libdb-5.3.so()(64bit) libid3tag.so.0()(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libltdl.so.7()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmad.so.0()(64bit) libmodplug.so.1()(64bit) libncursesw.so.5()(64bit) libogg.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librcc.so.0()(64bit) libsamplerate.so.0()(64bit) libsamplerate.so.0(libsamplerate.so.0.0)(64bit) libsndfile.so.1()(64bit) libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)(64bit) libspeex.so.1()(64bit) libtimidity-0.1.so.0()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) libvorbis.so.0()(64bit) libvorbisfile.so.3()(64bit) libwavpack.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) ncurses opus rtld(GNU_HASH) speex Provides -------- moc: libffmpeg_decoder.so()(64bit) libflac_decoder.so()(64bit) libmodplug_decoder.so()(64bit) libmp3_decoder.so()(64bit) libsndfile_decoder.so()(64bit) libspeex_decoder.so()(64bit) libtimidity_decoder.so()(64bit) libvorbis_decoder.so()(64bit) libwavpack_decoder.so()(64bit) moc moc(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- moc: /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libffmpeg_decoder.so moc: /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libflac_decoder.so moc: /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libmodplug_decoder.so moc: /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libmp3_decoder.so moc: /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libsndfile_decoder.so moc: /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libspeex_decoder.so moc: /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libtimidity_decoder.so moc: /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libvorbis_decoder.so moc: /usr/lib64/moc/decoder_plugins/libwavpack_decoder.so ---> as discussed above. Source checksums ---------------- http://ftp.daper.net/pub/soft/moc/unstable/moc-2.5.0-beta1.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 076816da9c6d1e61a386a1dda5f63ee2fc84bc31e9011ef70acc1d391d4c46a6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 076816da9c6d1e61a386a1dda5f63ee2fc84bc31e9011ef70acc1d391d4c46a6 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free -u https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2531 ##### This one is APPROVED! -- 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=2531 --- Comment #40 from Antonio <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-06-08 16:12:27 CEST --- No problem :) Not only. Sox don't able to manage .mp3 files so the tests fail in part. I prefer exclude it for now. http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc/moc.spec http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/moc/moc-2.5.0-0.9.beta1.fc18.src.rpm Thank you very much, Björn. -- 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=2531 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.