[Bug 510668] Review Request: canorus - Music Score Editor

[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=510668





--- Comment #13 from Christian Krause <chkr at plauener.de>  2009-07-26 06:35:58 EDT ---
Sorry for the delay, here is the complete review:

* rpmlint:  OK
rpmlint SPECS/canorus.spec RPMS/i586/canorus-*
SRPMS/canorus-0.7-2.R1163.fc11.src.rpm 
canorus.i586: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/canorus/fonts/emmentaler-14.otf
../../fonts/lilypond/emmentaler-14.otf
canorus.i586: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/canorus/fonts/CenturySchL-BoldItal.otf
../../fonts/lilypond/CenturySchL-BoldItal.otf
canorus.i586: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/canorus/fonts/FreeSans.ttf ../../fonts/gnu-free/FreeSans.ttf
canorus.i586: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/canorus/fonts/CenturySchL-Roma.otf
../../fonts/lilypond/CenturySchL-Roma.otf
canorus.i586: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/canorus/fonts/CenturySchL-Ital.otf
../../fonts/lilypond/CenturySchL-Ital.otf
canorus.i586: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/canorus/fonts/CenturySchL-Bold.otf
../../fonts/lilypond/CenturySchL-Bold.otf
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

the reported errors are false positive since the link targets are provided
by packages listed as "Requires:"


* naming: TODO
- name matches upstream
- spec file name matches package name
- snapshot release tag (assuming it is a post-release snapshot) should contain
the date (the svnrev can be appended, but the date is required)
( according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages )


* License: TODO
- the package contains sources under the GPLv2, too:
src/import/pmidi/except.c (GPLv2 as published), most likely this means
that the complete package must be released as GPLv2
- the source package (and the built binary package) contain lots of examples
and so it is necessary to check their legal status - in the worst case they
must not only be stripped out from the binary but also from the sources - do
you have any information whether they are distributable?
- license file packaged: if the final package would be GPLv2, then we should
not package GPLv1

* specfile in American English and legible: OK

* %description: OK

* Sources: OK
- Source0 URL ok
- spectool -g canorus.spec works
- sources matches upstream - md5sum:
2dc201fec21d781d0add487c5a9ed35b  canorus_0.7svn.R1163_source.tar.bz2
- even if the URL for the nightly builds is linked directly from canorus'
homepage it is a little bit strange to use plain IP addresses here - let's hope
that upstream does an official release soon and the URL can be changed again to
something like this:
http://prdownload.berlios.de/canorus/canorus_0.7.R1002_source.tar.bz2

* Patches: OK
- probably Patch3 looks like that it could be accepted upstream

* Python requirements: 
- BR: python-devel: OK
- set python_sitearch when including arch-specific libraries: OK

* Compilation: OK (except F10)
- mock build works
- package builds correctly in koji for F12, F11 and F10
- however, due to the font problem, the package can't be installed in F10
- RPMOPTFLAGS used
- parallel build supported via _smp_mflags 

* debuginfo sub-package: OK
- non-empty
- debuginfo file works together with gdb

* BuildRequires: OK

* Locales handling: TODO
The package contains language files in a non-gettext format (*.qm files). 
Is it necessary to add them also via the %lang(xx) tag?

* shared/static libs, pkgconfig/header/*.la files: OK (n/a)

* packages must own all directories: OK

* files not listed twice: OK

* permissions of files: OK
- %defattr used
- final file permissions OK

* %clean section: OK

* macro usage: OK

* code vs. content: TODO
- see above (license issues)
- package contains example midi files, sheets of music, etc. (3.5 MB)
- according to the guidelines examples in general are not considered as
content, but if they e.g. contain notes from music which is still under
copyright I assume it would not be permissable...

* large documentation into subpackage: OK (n/a)

* GUI application needs %{name}.desktop: OK

* no directories owned which are already owned by other packages: OK

* rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %{install}: OK

* all file names UTF8: OK

* functional test: TODO
- program segfaults when it is closed
- program segfaults when opening any of the musicxml examples

* Scriptlets:
- icon cache: OK
- desktop database: OK (.desktop file contains MimeType)

-- 
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.