[Bug 470913] Review Request: lv2core - An Audio Plugin Standard

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470913


Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael at gmx.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |bugs.michael at gmx.net
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael at gmx.net>  2008-12-17 07:40:57 EDT ---
In bug 232465 comment 2 I pointed out that the package is dual-licenced: API
header is LGPLv2+, data file is MIT.

 => License: LGPLv2+ and MIT

Authors's COPYING file says "BSD-style", but the licence text matches this:
http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php


It is not clear to me why neither the LV2 bundledir ( %{_libdir}/lv2 ) nor the
bundle name ( lv2core.lv2 ) are defined anywhere in the lv2.h file. That means
applications would need to define it themselves. Hopefully they get it right
and agree on a standard path.


Home page lists a rev3 (2008-11-08) with a comment in the ChangeLog that says
"unstable". Can't find any such classification of rev2.


> %files
> %doc AUTHORS COPYING README
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)

I suggest moving the %defattr one line up.
Actually rpmlint reports this, too.


> Summary:        An Audio Plugin Standard

I would drop the "An ". ;)


Starting the %description with the following sentence from the home page would
be an improvement:

LV2 is a standard for plugins and matching host applications, mainly targeted
at audio processing and generation.



With those changes, which can be applied in pkg cvs, it's fine packaging-wise: 

APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.