[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=YYREB2YnrT&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=KOnRxp3Qap&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-01-28 10:05:11 -- 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=Qd2HEJggG4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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=Ph6wqqPFHq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- Package non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-0798/non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17 then log in and leave karma (feedback). -- 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=yAQ5nq3dsV&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17 -- 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=xaF1dYiZS9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc18 -- 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=2ZGfeLIZ2J&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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=pF45fjXHsc&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #10 from Jørn Lomax --- Ahh, my bad. I was just cleaning up some of the packages I got reviewed during the summer that still weren't closed and were cluttering up my list of bugs. Guess i was a little hasty :p -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #9 from Matthias Runge --- @Jørn normally, it get's closed if a package hits stable. Apparently, there are no builds yet. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/non-daw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #8 from Brendan Jones --- Not as yet. I've not submitted an update but will soon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #7 from Jørn Lomax --- Good to close this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: non-daw Short Description: digitial audio workstation for JACK Owners: bsjones Branches:f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge --- To intervene here, Jørn, please try to improve your review! From fedora-review output: [ ] = Manual review needed (means, the reviewer has to do work by hand) There are easy ones (GPLv2+ is absolutely an open source compatible license), changelog, but also harder things to check. You should do that! Fedora review also spits out the following text: fedora-review is automated tool, but *YOU* are responsible for manually reviewing the results and finishing the review. Do not just copy-paste the results without understanding them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012
Jørn Lomax changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jørn Lomax ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is
such a file.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[ ]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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.
[ ]: 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)", "Unknown or generated".
2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/makerpm/rpmbuild/REVIEW/866012-non-daw/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[ ]: SourceX tarball gene
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 --- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones --- Thanks Jørn Updated here: SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/non-daw.spec SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/non-daw-1.1.0-0.2.gitae6b78cf.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Jørn Lomax changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Jørn Lomax changed: What|Removed |Added CC||northlo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|northlo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jørn Lomax --- The only issue I can see is that there is no mention about contact upstream about the incorrect fsf-address. And while you are at it, you can also mention the following bug to them: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/non-daw-1.1.0-0.1.gitae6b78cf.fc17.x86_64/usr/share/applications/non-daw.desktop: warning: value "Application;AudioVideo;Audio;X-Jack;" for key "Categories" in group "Desktop Entry" contains a deprecated value "Application Once you have fixed that little issue, I'll be ready to approve it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 866012] Review Request: non-daw - a digital audio workstation using JACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866012 Brendan Jones changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||805236 (FedoraAudio) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
