[Bug 455953] Review Request: rakarrack - Audio effects processing rack for guitar

Sat Oct 4 08:32:54 UTC 2008

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=455953

Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |orcanbahri at yahoo.com

--- Comment #3 from Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com>  2008-10-04 04:32:53 EDT ---
The package is pretty good shape. Here are my notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please fix or comment about items listed with [?] and [x].

[.]: good/pass
[x]: bad/fail
[o]: ugly... just kidding, this means N/A
[?]: questions/comments

[.] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint is silent
[.] 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 on Package Naming Guidelines
.
[.] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[?] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
COPYING file says GPLv3 , doc/COPYING file says GPLv2 , {.C} files say GPL
(version 2) explicitly. I would contact the author and ask what the actual
license is. If that's not possible I think GPLv2 will be the best option (which
is what you have already).
[.] 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. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
[.] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. 
e836896fe76aae6aba447e44cdceba4f1c3d422feaf43857bb8e3e041378d297 
rakarrack-0.2.0.tar.gz
[.] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[o] 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. 
[.] 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.
[o] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[o] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
[o] 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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
[.] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[.] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[.] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
[.] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[.] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .
[o] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[x] 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.
If you go to the Help-> contents or Help->about->license you will get errors.
Those need fixed.
[.] MUST: ScriptletSnippets are used properly.
[o] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[o] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[o] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[o] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[o] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[o] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[.] 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. 
[.] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. 
[.] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for
details.
[.] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 
[.] MUST: Latest version is packaged.
[?] MUST: Dist tag is present and proper.
Afaik the usual way in Fedora is the usage n%{?dist} where n is the release
number. Why did you use 0.n%{?dist}  ?
[x] MUST: Compiler flags are appropriate. 
Fedora specific compilation flags are not honored correctly. As the result
debuginfo rpm is currently not useful. You can check what optflags are used by
    $ rpm --eval %optflags
Please see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags
[.] MUST: final provides and requires are sane
[.] MUST: package builds in mock
[.] MUST: package installs and removes properly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional comments:
This code

# move icons to the proper freedesktop location
%{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps
%{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps
%{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps
%{__mv} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps/icono_rakarrack_32x32.png \
        %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/rakarrack.32x32.png
%{__mv} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps/icono_rakarrack_64x64.png \
        %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps/rakarrack.64x64.png
%{__mv} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps/icono_rakarrack_128x128.png \

%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/rakarrack.128x128.png

will be cleaner if its written as
for dim in 32x32 64x64 128x128; do
 %{__mkdir} -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/$dim/apps
 %{__mv} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps/icono_rakarrack_$dim.png \
        %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/$dim/apps/rakarrack.$dim.png
done
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the %exclude for?

%exclude %{_datadir}/applications/rakarrack.desktop
%{_datadir}/applications/*desktop

Can't you just use
%{_datadir}/applications/*desktop
or
%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files
implies that you can add/remove categories. Did I miss something? 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a great application. It took me a while until I put my guitar down and
finish the review. Thanks for including it in Fedora.

-- 
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.