[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mingw-id3lib-3.8.3-31.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-03-07 01:30:46 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-id3lib-3.8.3-31.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-id3lib-3.8.3-31.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559
--- Comment #8 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com ---
(In reply to František Dvořák from comment #7)
I'm sorry, I swapped the arguments for touch ('-r' is for the reference
file):
Fixed! My fault for not checking. :-)
Also the dll library has atypical name: libid3-3-8-3.dll. It is possible to
change it by removing -release $(LT_RELEASE) from libid3_la_LDFLAGS (in
the mingw patch), then name would be libid3-3.dll. I'm not sure if it is
important, it is probably mere cosmetics...
It has an odd name on Linux too: libid3-3.8.so.3.0.0
I would tend towards leaving this as is, because there is not likely to be
another id3lib release (although I would be really happy if there was a new
release containing the many fixes that have accumulated over the decade since
3.8.3 was released), so there is some possibility of being compatible with
other binary builds of id3lib with the same library versioning.
--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 --- Comment #9 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- (In reply to David King from comment #8) It has an odd name on Linux too: libid3-3.8.so.3.0.0 I would tend towards leaving this as is, because there is not likely to be another id3lib release (although I would be really happy if there was a new release containing the many fixes that have accumulated over the decade since 3.8.3 was released), so there is some possibility of being compatible with other binary builds of id3lib with the same library versioning. OK, I agree. :-) Using both '-version' and '-release' with libtool is atypical, but it looks like it can be combined. Increasing minor version number will lead to binary incompatibility of the library: http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Release-numbers.html#Release-numbers, but this is up to upstream, and it's OK. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 David King amigad...@amigadave.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-id3lib Short Description: Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags Owners: amigadave Branches: f20 InitialCC: -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mingw-id3lib-3.8.3-31.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-id3lib-3.8.3-31.fc20 -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 --- Comment #4 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Thanks for the comments! I fixed 1, 2, 3, 4. Not sure about 5, as I do not really know the convention (looking at the example in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW#Example_Specfile). I added your patch (slightly modified to use autoreconf rather than a bootstrap script), added the -no-undefined change to the existing id3lib-3.8.3-mingw.patch and updated the .spec and SRPM in place: Spec URL: http://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/mingw-id3lib.spec SRPM URL: http://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/mingw-id3lib-3.8.3-31.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6564355 I suppose it makes sense to get the autoreconf patch into the native package too? It saves a few hundred kB in the SRPM size. :-) I do not get the opportunity to use Windows much, but I will try with some non-ASCII characters with EasyTAG the next time I do some testing. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559
--- Comment #5 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
Nice! The autoreconf way is better. :-) It could be opened low priority bug
against id3lib Fedora package (there is already another packaging bug waiting
there). The proper way would be to send the patch to upstream, but it doesn't
seem very active now...
About the 5: the recommended way is to use formatting from rpmdevtools
examples:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/rpmdevtools.git/plain/spectemplate-lib.spec ,
but the current formatting is OK.
Full review report bellow.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- I think the seds for libtool are not needed now?
- fedora-review complains about obsolete autoconf macros, can you also replace
AM_PROG_LIBTOOL by LT_INIT? Similar changes as in ./configure.in can be done in
zlib/configure.in
- converting files changes the timestamps, there is a trick how to keep
timestamp in some other packages:
iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF8 ChangeLog tmp \
touch -r tmp ChangeLog \
mv tmp ChangeLog
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), *No copyright* LGPL
(v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), LGPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated, zlib/libpng. 29 files
have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 901120 bytes in 16 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 --- Comment #6 from David King amigad...@amigadave.com --- Thanks again for the comments. yes, the sed lines now seem unnecessary, so I removed them. I replaced AM_PROG_LIBTOOL by LT_INIT and preserved the timestamps as you suggested. SRPM URL: http://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/mingw-id3lib-3.8.3-31.fc21.src.rpm Spec URL: http://amigadave.fedorapeople.org/mingw-id3lib.spec Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6567002 -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559
František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz ---
I'm sorry, I swapped the arguments for touch ('-r' is for the reference file):
iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF8 ChangeLog tmp \
touch -r ChangeLog tmp \
mv tmp ChangeLog
Also the dll library has atypical name: libid3-3-8-3.dll. It is possible to
change it by removing -release $(LT_RELEASE) from libid3_la_LDFLAGS (in the
mingw patch), then name would be libid3-3.dll. I'm not sure if it is important,
it is probably mere cosmetics...
Fixing touch (and changing result dll name if to do it) can be done post
review.
Package APPROVED!
--
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED CC||val...@civ.zcu.cz Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|val...@civ.zcu.cz Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Taking the review. 1) Since it is needed to regenerate the configure script anyway, I would vote for drop the terrible autotools patch from original native package and patch the sources instead to work with newer autotools, and regenerate everything. Any opinion? (I'll attach patches for inspiration) 2) Using LDFLAGS=-no-undefined in the %build would override ldflags from rpmbuild. I guess better would be a patch? Or using hack - add it to libid3_la_LIBADD? 3) What is the reason for check_PROGRAMS= parameter for make? 4) This could be formulated better (but I'm not native English speaker): This is the MinGW tools, built for the win32 target. It could be used something like: This is the MinGW version of tools, These are the MinGW compiled tools, ... 5) cosmetic/silly (you can ignore :-)): double newlines before '%package -n mingw...' could used everywhere in .spec id3lib can use iconv for converting characters. But it would be hard to convince configure to use it (there are some TRY_RUNs). Does id3lib work OK with non-ASCII characters in id3 tags? (There is some replacement code for it, so it is probably fine.) -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 --- Comment #2 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Created attachment 866774 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=866774action=edit Update sources for autotools to work with newer versions + helper ./bootstrap script. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066559] Review Request: mingw-id3lib - Library for manipulating ID3v1 and ID3v2 tags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066559 --- Comment #3 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Created attachment 866775 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=866775action=edit Flag -no-undefined for MinGW build. -- 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
