[Bug 1250833] Review Request: helm - Polyphonic software synth with lots of modulation and easy to use UI

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250833



--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> ---
Please fill in your full real name in your bugzilla account preferences.


Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket:

  fedora-review -b 1250833

It downloads the latest spec file and src.rpm from the "Spec URL:" and "SRPM
URL:" lines (or additional URLs it finds) and performs many checks that are
relevant during review and should be most interesting to the package
maintainer.


> -> Requires: helm-common
>    you should specify version at least. Example:
>    Requires: helm-common = %{version}

Omitting -%{release} serves no purpose. Actually, -common subpackages are
disguised base packages, and this one applies except the %{?_isa}:

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package


> %doc

%doc is not a section but an attribute. Empty %doc lines are no-op. It's more
cleaner to delete them.


> %package lv2
> Summary:	Helm lv2 plugin
> Group:		Applications/Multimedia
> Requires: 	%{name}-common = %{version}
> %description lv2
> Helm is a polyphonic software synth with lots of modulation and and easy to use UT

The %description ought to explain what this particular package does. What's the
relevance of LV2, for example? Why is the %description longer than the
%description of the base package?

> %description
> Helm is a software synth designed to be easy to use

The subpackage is missing an explicit dependency on "lv2". Note that since LV2
is a library-less API, there is no automatic dependency on it, but package
"lv2" is the one that provides the ownership of %_libdir/lv2.


> %files lv2
> %{_libdir}/lv2/helm.lv2/

> %package lv2

That creates a subpackage helm-lv2. Instead, I think the general add-on package
naming guidelines apply:

 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28General.29

It is a plugin to LV2. It extends LV2.

%package -n lv2-helm


> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4821/10784821/build.log

Build output is non-verbose. One cannot see which compiler and linker flags
have been used actually.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
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]