[Bug 477542] Review Request: mpdscribble - A mpd client which submits information about tracks being played to Last.fm

[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=477542





--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-02-02 07:08:54 EDT ---
REVIEW:

- You packaged relatively old version - 0.13, although they released v 0.16.
- rpmlint is not silent:

[petro at host-12-116 SPECS]$ rpmlint ~/Desktop/mpdscribble-0.13-1.fc10.*
mpdscribble.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.13.1 ['0.13-1.fc10',
'0.13-1']
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[petro at host-12-116 SPECS]

Please  use %{version}-%{release} w/o .fc10 suffix in %changelog. For example,
if %{version} is 0.13 and release is 1%{?dist} you should use 0.13-1 as version
tag in %changelog.

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.  After brief chacking, I found
only one *possible* issue - this package ships (and was built against)
libmpdclient library ( http://mpd.wikia.com/wiki/ClientLib:libmpdclient ). The
Guidelines has statement that we must avoid using such libraries if they
already exists in system. This library, libmpdclient still not included in main
Fedora repository (therefore it doesn't a problem), however it might be
included in the future (and will be a problem). You should watch this issue.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s), is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

[petro at host-12-116 SOURCES]$ md5sum mpdscribble-0.13.tar.gz*
884717131356ad2f62918d458258b443  mpdscribble-0.13.tar.gz
884717131356ad2f62918d458258b443  mpdscribble-0.13.tar.gz.from_srpm
[petro at host-12-116 SOURCES]$


+ The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1098823

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ No need to handle locales.
+ No shared library files.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ No large documentation files.
+ Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ No header files
+ No static libraries
+ No pkgconfig(.pc) files
+ No library files with a suffix
+ No devel packages
+ No .la libtool archives
+ Not a GUI application
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8.

So here are my suggestions:

* update srpm to latest 0.16 (or explain why you won't do it).
* fix %changelog versioning entry
* consider packaging libmpdclient also (not a blocker)

-- 
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.