[Bug 800284] Review Request: AtomicParsley - Command-Line Program to Read and Set iTunes-style Metadata Tags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=800284

--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-09 04:05:17 EDT ---
Source file is original. Ok.

TODO: The summary emphasis a service, but the tool manipulates MPEG-4 atoms
regardless of the origin of a file. Please change the summary to be more
descriptive (e.g. `Manipulate MPEG-4 metadata').

TODO: The same applies to the description. Copying first paragraph with the
list of metadata profiles from project web page sounds better for me.

FIX: All files are distributed under GPLv2 or later version. Change the License
tag to GPLv2+.

TODO: Remove the useless commented code from SPEC file (Source1, etc.).

Source0 and URL are usable Ok.

TODO: Append a slash to the URL to provide normalized URL.

TODO: The `rm -rf __MACOSX' command in %prep section should go after %setup.

TODO: Replace %__sed with plain `sed'.
TODI: Replace %__install with plain `install'.

TODO: Setting CXX variable is useless. It's not used anywhere in the build
script. Maybe you want to replace `g++' with `$CXX' in the build script.

$ rpmlint AtomicParsley.spec ../SRPMS/AtomicParsley-0.9.0-9.fc18.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/AtomicParsley-*
AtomicParsley.spec:8: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
AtomicParsley.spec:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
AtomicParsley.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_tmppath}
AtomicParsley.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
AtomicParsley.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
AtomicParsley.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{release}
AtomicParsley.spec:23: W: macro-in-comment %{S
AtomicParsley.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %clean
AtomicParsley.spec:40: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
AtomicParsley.spec:44: W: macro-in-comment %defattr
AtomicParsley.spec:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab:
line 13)
AtomicParsley.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
AtomicParsley.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
AtomicParsley.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_tmppath}
AtomicParsley.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
AtomicParsley.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
AtomicParsley.src:13: W: macro-in-comment %{release}
AtomicParsley.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{S
AtomicParsley.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %clean
AtomicParsley.src:40: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
AtomicParsley.src:44: W: macro-in-comment %defattr
AtomicParsley.src:13: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab:
line 13)
AtomicParsley.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.0-9.fc16
['0.9.0-9.fc18', '0.9.0-9']
AtomicParsley.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/AtomicParsley-0.9.0/COPYING
AtomicParsley.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary AtomicParsley
AtomicParsley-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 24 warnings.

FIX: Remove the dead code from spec file, or escape percent characters with
another percent. The SPEC macros are evaluated even inside shell comments
FIX: Remove the `.fc16' from changelog entries.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/AtomicParsley-0.9.0-9.fc18.x86_64.rpm
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root    root                   167944 May  9 09:36
/usr/bin/AtomicParsley
drwxr-xr-x    2 root    root                        0 May  9 09:36
/usr/share/doc/AtomicParsley-0.9.0
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                     4524 Sep 16  2006
/usr/share/doc/AtomicParsley-0.9.0/AP buglist.txt
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                    15123 Sep 30  1999
/usr/share/doc/AtomicParsley-0.9.0/COPYING
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root                    24412 Sep 26  2006
/usr/share/doc/AtomicParsley-0.9.0/Using AtomicParsley.rtf
File permissions and layout is Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/AtomicParsley-0.9.0-9.fc18.x86_64.rpm
|sort |uniq -c
      1 libc.so.6()(64bit)
      1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
      1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
      1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
      1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
      1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
      1 libm.so.6()(64bit)
      1 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
      1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
      1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
      1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
      1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
      1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
      1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides  -p ../RPMS/x86_64/AtomicParsley-0.9.0-9.fc18.x86_64.rpm
|sort |uniq -c
      1 AtomicParsley = 0.9.0-9.fc18
      1 AtomicParsley(x86-64) = 0.9.0-9.fc18
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/AtomicParsley-0.9.0-9.fc18.x86_64.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

Package builds in F18
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4064260). Ok.

I sent a request for Fedora legal department to bless this package because I'm
not sure about MPEG-4 container patents
(http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2012-May/thread.html).

Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora packaging guidelines.


Please correct all `FIX' issues, consider fixing `TODO' items, and provide new
spec file.

Resolution: Package NOT 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.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]