https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450122



--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.mich...@gmx.net> ---
There is absolutely no reason for the src.rpm %name to be qt5-qtmidi instead of
qtmidi. Upstream name is "qtmidi", and that ought to be the %name for this
package.

The naming guidelines are also clear about how to name the binary packages:
%{parent}-%{child}, and since there are multiple versions of Qt in the
distribution, an extension lib for Qt5 makes %parent "qt5".

[...]

Regardless of the naming stuff, the package ought to be fixed. Please consider
pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket:

  fedora-review -b 1450122

That tool is not only for reviewers. Packagers ought to be familiar with it,
too.

[...]

Some findings based on skimming over the spec file:


> Summary:        Qt 5 Multimedia Library

Ambiguous. Better:

  Platform independent MIDI module for Qt 5.


> License:        GPL-3.0

This has never been one of the license tags used by Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses


> %description
> Qt is a set of libraries for developing applications.

Simplified so much, it isn't helpful. Interestingly, the %description of
qt5-qtbase is very simple, too.


>  This package contains an plugin to support MIDI input and output devices.

... a plugin ...


> %package devel
> Summary:        Qt Development Kit

Not true. Inaccurate.


> Group:          Development/Libraries/X11

Unusual, and the "Group:" tag should not be set anymore for years:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections


> Requires:       %{name} = %{version}

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


> Provides:       libQt5Midi-devel = %{version}
> Obsoletes:      libQt5Midi-devel < %{version}

> Provides:       libQt5Midi-private-headers-devel = %{version}
> Obsoletes:      libQt5Midi-private-headers-devel < %{version}

What other distribution do these try to cover? Debian? Come on, these would be
of very limited use to package users and would only cause Repo/RPM metadata
bloat.


> %files private-headers-devel
> %license LICENSE.GPLv3
> %doc README.md

Superfluous duplication of %license and %doc files, since package depends on
-devel.

-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to