[Bug 919395] Review Request: libtaginfo - A library for reading media metadata (tags)

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

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919395

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Koji scratchbuild for F-18:

* http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5094571

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+/- rpmlint is not silent, but his messages can be safely ignored in this case
- except one with zero length Vala file:

Auriga ~/Desktop: rpmlint libtaginfo-*
libtaginfo.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsi
libtaginfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US taglib -> ta glib,
ta-glib, tag lib
libtaginfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vala -> lava, val, vale
libtaginfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitrate -> nitrate, bit
rate, bit-rate
libtaginfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US samplerate -> sample
rate, sample-rate, sampler ate
libtaginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsi
libtaginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US taglib -> ta glib,
ta-glib, tag lib
libtaginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vala -> lava, val,
vale
libtaginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitrate -> nitrate,
bit rate, bit-rate
libtaginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US samplerate -> sample
rate, sample-rate, sampler ate

^^^ False positives.

libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/info.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/waveinfo.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/speexinfo.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/apeinfo.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/mpcinfo.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/asfinfo.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/taginfo_internal.h
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/xiph_common.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/trueaudioinfo.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/ogginfo.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/bindings/c/taginfo_c.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/wavpackinfo.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/bindings/c/taginfo_c.h
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/flacinfo.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/mp3info.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/aiffinfo.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/taginfo.h
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/mp4info.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/mp4_common.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/id3_common.cc
libtaginfo-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/libtaginfo-0.1.3/libtaginfo/ape_common.cc
libtaginfo-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libtaginfo/taginfo_internal.h
libtaginfo-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libtaginfo/taginfo_c.h

^^^ Not a blocker. Should be reported upstream.

libtaginfo-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/vala/vapi/libtaginfo_c.deps

^^^ That's something I'd like to be fixed/explained.

libtaginfo-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/libtaginfo/taginfo.h

^^^ False positive.
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 25 errors, 10 warnings.
Auriga ~/Desktop: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ 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
(LGPLv2.1 or later).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, 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, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum libtaginfo-0.1.3.tar.gz*
33c42653c5302d0fb35c0b79dcd201263803b7d0750814cee9419e6eb8bc7d13 
libtaginfo-0.1.3.tar.gz
33c42653c5302d0fb35c0b79dcd201263803b7d0750814cee9419e6eb8bc7d13 
libtaginfo-0.1.3.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates. I personally don't like
that it owns "/usr/share/vala/" and "/usr/share/vala/vapi/" but looks like a
bunch of other packages are doing exactly the same. *Consider* splitting
vala-related part to the *-vala subpackage and make it dependent on vala -
that's *not* a blocker - just a friendly advice.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on
systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5). Beware. Also you should remove "rm -rf
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" from %install section - it also no longer required since
EL6/F-12.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.

+/- Header files are stored in a -devel package. I really surprized that one
particular header was installed as
%{_libdir}/libtaginfo/include/libtaginfoconfig.h. It's currently empty, so
maybe it's better just to remove it - what do you think?

0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a
-devel package.
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.

+/- The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages, except Vala-related part. See my note below. I personally don't
consider this as a blocker.

0 At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT) although it's no longer necessary (see my note above).

+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


I don't see any *fatal* issues, except those who can be fixed right before
importing to Fedora git repos, so this package is


APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6YMNy7YCAN&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
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]