[Bug 2531] Review request: moc - Music on Console - Console audio player for Linux/UNIX
RPM Fusion Bugzilla
noreply at rpmfusion.org
Sat Oct 20 23:54:43 CEST 2012
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2531
--- Comment #12 from Elder Marco <eldermarco at gmail.com> 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/LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses
[2] -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
[3] -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
--
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.
More information about the rpmfusion-developers
mailing list