Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info ReportedBy: bdpepple@ameritech.net QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp-0.3.3-1.src.rpm Description: daap-sharp is a DAAP (Digial Audio Access Protocol) implementation. It is used by Apple's iTunes software to share music.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
bdpepple@ameritech.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |190940 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |cweyl@alumni.drew.edu OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-05-09 12:26 EST ------- MUSTS: - rpmlint checks return (devel/i386):
[build@zeus result]$ rpmlint daap-sharp-0.3.3-1.i386.rpm E: daap-sharp no-binary E: daap-sharp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: daap-sharp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/daap-sharp/daap-sharp.dll.config W: daap-sharp devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/daap-sharp.pc
[build@zeus result]$ rpmlint daap-sharp-0.3.3-1.src.rpm E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name}
- package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPL) OK, matches source, included text in %doc - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream 53feead0f3ef75cf5e34cbb4f1d37f30 daap-sharp-0.3.3.tar.gz 53feead0f3ef75cf5e34cbb4f1d37f30 daap-sharp-0.3.3.tar.gz.srpm - package compiles on devel (i386) BAD: package fails to compile in mock on FC-5/x86_64 (and not ExcludeArch'ed): RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/daap-sharp-0.3.3-1-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/daap-sharp Most likely due to this in %files: %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} Why not use %{_libdir}/%{name} instead? In fact, why not use %{_libdir} everywhere %{_prefix}/lib is used in the spec? - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file BAD: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package
SHOULD: - why not include AUTHORS, ChangeLog, README, etc, in %doc? - why not include the samples in %doc?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@ameritech.net 2006-05-09 12:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1)
BAD: package fails to compile in mock on FC-5/x86_64 (and not ExcludeArch'ed): RPM build errors: File not found: /var/tmp/daap-sharp-0.3.3-1-root-mockbuild/usr/lib/daap-sharp Most likely due to this in %files: %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} Why not use %{_libdir}/%{name} instead? In fact, why not use %{_libdir} everywhere %{_prefix}/lib is used in the spec? BAD: Files used by pkgconfig (.pc files) must be in a -devel package
The reasons for using %{_prefix}/lib and not having a -devel package are explained on the wiki.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Mono
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@ameritech.net 2006-05-09 12:58 EST ------- Chris, Could you attach the build log for the mock failure on FC-5/x86_64, so I can check to see why it failed?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-05-09 13:54 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=128801) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128801&action=vie...) fedora-5-x86_64-core buildlog
Buildlog from mock for x86_64 / FC-5.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
bdpepple@ameritech.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #128801|0 |1 is obsolete| |
------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@ameritech.net 2006-05-09 14:02 EST ------- (From update of attachment 128801) Wrong build log. This is for perl-Test-Cmd.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-05-09 14:11 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=128802) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128802&action=vie...) _correct_ x86_64 / FC-5 build.log
(11:11:44) jima: cweyl: "due to scheduling difficulties, monday has been extended through wednesday."
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-05-09 16:21 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=128810) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128810&action=vie...) development / x86_64 build.log
As requested....
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
bdpepple@ameritech.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #128802|0 |1 is obsolete| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@ameritech.net 2006-05-09 16:40 EST ------- Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp-0.3.3-2.src.rpm
* Tue May 9 2006 Brian Pepple bdpepple@ameritech.net - 0.3.3-2 - Add patch to fix build on x86_64.
This should hopefully fix the build for development. FC5 will still fail on x86_64, due to a problem with avahi-sharp, though that will be addressed with avahi-sharp-0.6.9-9.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@ameritech.net 2006-05-16 14:03 EST ------- Spec URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp.spec SRPM URL: http://piedmont.homelinux.org/fedora/tangerine/daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.src.rpm
* Tue May 16 2006 Brian Pepple bdpepple@ameritech.net - 0.3.3-3 - Add devel package for *.pc file. - Add Req on mono-core. - Use cleaner URL.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
cweyl@alumni.drew.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@alumni.drew.edu 2006-05-25 20:30 EST ------- Sorry for the delay.
Good:
- rpmlint checks return: daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.src.rpm E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib E: daap-sharp hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/%{name} daap-sharp-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm E: daap-sharp no-binary E: daap-sharp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib E: daap-sharp script-without-shellbang /usr/lib/daap-sharp/daap-sharp.dll.configdaap-sharp-debuginfo-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm daap-sharp-devel-0.3.3-3.x86_64.rpm W: daap-sharp-devel no-documentation
All errors and warnings expected for mono packages.
- package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - devel requires base package n-v-r
Not a must, but why not: - include AUTHORS, ChangeLog, README, etc, in %doc? - include the samples in %doc?
APPROVED.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
bdpepple@ameritech.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@ameritech.net 2006-05-26 15:53 EST ------- Built for FC-5 & devel. Thanks for the review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: daap-sharp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=190939
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org