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=486760 --- Comment #7 from Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-06 12:20:21 EDT --- Here is my partial review: - rpmlint output See comment 2. These can both be fixed. ? package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines I may be missing something, but why is this package not called "musescore" to match upstream? The problem with the current name is that it's confusing with names like "mscorefonts" (the MS Core Fonts package found in some distros like Debian). + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license Very complex licensing situation, but the packager seems to have done a good job resolving the different licenses involved. + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm I unpacked the sources and the upstream tarball and compared them with 'diff -urN' and the only difference is the files that the packager has removed because of licensing problems. + package successfully builds on at least one architecture On x86_64. n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed - BuildRequires list all build dependencies Fails to build in Koji. ? %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* This doesn't use ordinary locale files, but some sort of Qt thing. Can the packager point to any guidance on how to package these? n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun n/a does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content + large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files + packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream ? translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available - reviewer should build the package in mock ? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures - review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review