https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Hi Ken,

I've uploaded the spec/srpm again:

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/albumart/

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/albumart/albumart.spec

http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/albumart/albumart-1.6.6-1.fc20.src.rpm

I just checked the website, and the project appears dead :(

There hasn't been any newer releases since the 1.6.6 in 2008. I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth getting this into Fedora, or if it'd be better to look for another program that's better maintained?

Thanks Ankur

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

--- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com --- I own a package (cronolog) that hasn't had an upstream release in 11 years, but it continues to build, and I use it every day on many servers at my work. So it's possible :) Of course, it's a small C application with basically no dependencies. This albumart application appears to depend on Python and PyQT, both of which might lead to issues down the road if there's no one keeping up with Python or PyQT API changes.

For albumart, I'm ok with reviewing, but you'll be on the hook for maintainance should problems be found. Up to you.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

--- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Any news here...?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mario.blaettermann@gmail.co | |m Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #8 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- The latest updates in the Python packaging guidelines need the following changes:

python-devel > python2-devel

%{__python} > %{__python2}

Besides that, %{python2_sitelib} is also available as macro (currently not for EPEL), although not mentioned in the packaging guidelines yet.

The source tarball contains a manpage named "albumart-qt.1" in the "debian" folder. Please install it.

The folder %{_datadir}/apps/konqueror/servicemenus/ is owned by the kde-filesystem-package. You still have to add it to "Requires:". I suggest to create a -konqueror subpackage to make your main package independent from KDE. The subpackage should also require kde-baseapps where the "konqueror" binary resides. Without that, it wouldn't make sense to have such a servicemenu. Moreover, have a look at the Provides in the binary package. I'm not sure if PyQt will detected automatically by rpm. If not, add it manually.

Most of the file headers of the Python scripts don't show licenses, but at least one file which will go in the binary package has the "later versions" clause in addition to the GPLv2 declaration, that's why the package license is GPLv2+.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

--- Comment #10 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6214472

$ rpmlint -i -v * albumart.noarch: I: checking albumart.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/hiteck/projects/albumart/ (timeout 10 seconds) albumart.src: I: checking albumart.src: I: checking-url http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/hiteck/projects/albumart/ (timeout 10 seconds) albumart.src:56: E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/%{name}/* A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

albumart.src:61: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.

albumart.src: I: checking-url http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/hiteck/projects/albumart/dist/albumart-1.6.6.tar... (timeout 10 seconds) albumart-konqueror.noarch: I: checking albumart-konqueror.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) additon -> addition, addiction, Addison The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

albumart-konqueror.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/hiteck/projects/albumart/ (timeout 10 seconds) albumart-konqueror.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.

albumart.spec:56: E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/%{name}/* A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

albumart.spec:61: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.

albumart.spec: I: checking-url http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/hiteck/projects/albumart/dist/albumart-1.6.6.tar... (timeout 10 seconds) 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.

The macro-in-comment warning is simply to fix with a double %.

The /usr/lib thing is false positive, it is just a subfolder of %buildroot.

--------------------------------- key:

[+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work ---------------------------------

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPLv2+ [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * de2e7e344e0fa1ebdf593099af9a365230d2a467b02364b1f9be6b2f023cae8e albumart-1.6.6.tar.gz de2e7e344e0fa1ebdf593099af9a365230d2a467b02364b1f9be6b2f023cae8e albumart-1.6.6.tar.gz.orig

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [+] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Found on the project website:

"In order to run the source packages you'll need:

Python 2.3 or better with python-xmlbase. QT >= 2.3 or >= 3.1 and PyQT, the Python bindings. Python Imaging Library GNU make"

The package-python-imaging is missing as a runtime requirement. Another problem: Fedora doesn't ship it anymore. Since f19, it is replaced by python-pillow, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Pillow. In some cases the Python import declarations need to be fixed.

Maybe python-imaging isn't really needed, but the upstream developer of a dead project is probably not available so you won't we able to ask him... Anyway, this dependency should be investigated.

BTW, the initial cleaning of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install is obsolete for ages, you can drop this line safely (only needed for EPEL5). Regarding the *.desktop file for Konqueror, such files don't follow the Freedesktop rules and don't need to be validated.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

--- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Sorry Mario. I've been busy holidaying. I'll provide an update this week.

Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com changed:

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

--- Comment #14 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaettermann@gmail.com --- Your link points to the *noarch.rpm, nevertheless I found the srpm here: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/albumart/albumart-1.6.6-1.fc20.src.rpm

Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6366215

$ rpmlint -i -v * albumart.src: I: checking albumart.src: I: checking-url http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/hiteck/projects/albumart/ (timeout 10 seconds) albumart.src:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/%{name}/* A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

albumart.src: I: checking-url http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/hiteck/projects/albumart/dist/albumart-1.6.6.tar... (timeout 10 seconds) albumart.noarch: I: checking albumart.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-urllib3 You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags.

albumart.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/hiteck/projects/albumart/ (timeout 10 seconds) albumart-konqueror.noarch: I: checking albumart-konqueror.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/hiteck/projects/albumart/ (timeout 10 seconds) albumart-konqueror.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.

albumart.spec:57: E: hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/%{name}/* A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

albumart.spec: I: checking-url http://www.unrealvoodoo.org/hiteck/projects/albumart/dist/albumart-1.6.6.tar... (timeout 10 seconds) 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings.

The remaining warnings have been already discussed here.

OK, here we go:

--------------------------------- key:

[+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work ---------------------------------

[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPLv2+ [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. $ sha256sum * de2e7e344e0fa1ebdf593099af9a365230d2a467b02364b1f9be6b2f023cae8e albumart-1.6.6.tar.gz de2e7e344e0fa1ebdf593099af9a365230d2a467b02364b1f9be6b2f023cae8e albumart-1.6.6.tar.gz.orig

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [.] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [.] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses Mock anyway). [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [+] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED

----------------

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- albumart-1.6.6-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/albumart-1.6.6-1.fc20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916039

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |albumart-1.6.6-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2014-09-09 18:17:04

--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- albumart-1.6.6-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.