[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 Hans Ulrich Niedermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||INSUFFICIENT_DATA Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |il.com) | --- Comment #11 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-07 04:39:07 EDT --- Closing this bug due to lack of communication from prospective maintainer. I intend to file my own review request of nted. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 Hans Ulrich Niedermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INSUFFICIENT_DATA |DUPLICATE --- Comment #12 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-07 06:23:06 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 461402 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-10 17:36 EST --- One month has passed since this package passed the review, and nothing has happened. Michel, is there a chance that something will happen in the future, or are we just going to close this down? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||l.com) --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-03 04:46 EST --- Michel, are you still there? Upstream has been mailing us with updates, and we don't even have the package in Fedora yet. I'd love to co-maintain this thing, but I don't want to be the maintainer for something I have reviewed and approved myself, for obvious reasons. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-19 04:41 EST --- Ping? Michel, you can proceed now with the CVS stuff. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-10 16:25 EST --- ACCEPT -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-09 02:40 EST --- Watching the diffs, I find: - Upstream COPYING is unchanged. Good. - Upstream file licenses are unchanged. Good. - You have made sure configure does not reset CXXFLAGS. Good catch. - You are resetting icondir from $(datadir)/icons to $(datadir)/pixmaps for some reason. Makes no difference to me. - You have fixed a bunch more compiler warnings. Good. (Have you sent this upstream?) - More translations for nted.desktop. Good. - po/nted.pot is now broken with CVS merge conflicts. Does not affect us. - You have removed the Requires: yelp. Hmm... whatever. Help|Documentation will still need yelp, won't it? - You also install the Italian manual. Good. So there remains a single issue now that you are changing configure.in... rebuilding the RPM from the SRPM appears to re-run aclocal, automake, autoconf, autoheader, and we'd like to avoid this. Looks like adding something like sleep 1 find . -type f -name Makefile.in | xargs touch touch aclocal.m4 config.h.in configure at the end of %prep prevents automakeCo re-runs. When this last one is done, I'll finally shut up and approve it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-10 01:02 EST --- Ah. the configure.in patch is really only needed for upstream, I can just not patch it (configure is patched by hand) Requires: yelp was removed because there are still disagreements about whether it should be depended on -- no core GNOME applications require it, for instance, and the problem is that it pulls in a lot of dependency for people who don't already run GNOME. Compiler warnings are sent to upstream, yes. Re-uploaded; same file names -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|dimensional.de) |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-08 10:17 EST ---
Review Guidelines MUST items:
OK: rpmlint produces no output
OK: naming guidelines
OK: %{name}.spec
OK: Packaging Guidelines
OK: Licensing Guidelines
All the source files seem to be GPLv2+.
Help-About dialog is GPLv2+.
HTML manuals are GFDLv1.2+
COPYING is GPLv3.
Ergo: Multiple licenses, but conforms to Fedora Licensing Guidelines.
FAIL: License field match
Does not cover HTML manuals. Use License: GPLv2+ and GFDL?
FAIL: %doc COPYING
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.
OK... as the shipped COPYING file is GPLv3+, which none of the files in
the source package is licensed under, the source package does NOT include
the text of the licenses in its own file. So we just can NOT %doc COPYING
to technically satisfy the guidelines.
Probably upstream has just shipped the default COPYING file autoreconf
automatically adds to the source tree. We should to confirm this with
upstream.
OK: spec file in en_US
OK: legible spec file
OK: Sources match upstream
OK: Compiles and builds on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=594520
N/A: Builds on all arches
OK: All build deps listed
OK: Uses %find_lang
N/A: no shared libs
N/A: not relocatable
OK: owns all created dirs
OK: no duplicate files in %files
OK: proper file permissions
OK: %clean with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK: consistent use of macros
OK: packagecontains code
OK: Those two HTML manuals are not necessarily large docs for a -doc pkg.
Oh, and they are needed as online help at runtime.
OK: %doc files must not affect runtime...
The Help-Documentation menu item just shows an untitled dialog window
+-+
| Excuse! The documentation is not available |
| due to an installation error|
| [ OK ] |
+-+
Apart from this, nted works like a charm with or without docs.
N/A: No header files
N/A: no static libs
N/A: no foo.pc file
N/A: no libfoo.so.1.1
N/A: devel package
N/A: no .la files
OK: desktop file
OK, but German translations to go with the German manual would be nice.
OK: Does not own other apps' files or dirs
OK: %install starts with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK: All filenames are valid ASCII and thus UTF-8
Review Guidelines SHOULD items:
FAIL: No COPYING for GPLv2
OK: Are Summary(de) and %description(de) available? Yes, now.
OK: Builds in local mock
OK: Builds in Fedora koji on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64
OK: Appears to function as described.
N/A: No scriptlets
N/A: no subpackages
N/A: no foo.pc
N/A: no file deps
Packaging Guidelines:
OK: Uses standard compiler flags now.
OK: All docs in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} now.
SUMMARY:
FAIL License: ignores HTML manual license
FAIL We need to NOT %doc COPYING. Just ignore the COPYING file.
SHOULDFIX Docs: Are installed to a place where nted cannot find it.
I have a patch.
OPTIONAL Add lang(de) versions for Summary: and Description:
OPTIONAL Assist upstream with cleaning up nted's configure.in
OPTIONAL The code is still full of ugly compiler warnings.
I'd say upstream should fix that, possibly with some help.
See http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/nted/0.22.3-2.4.fc9/ for
my suggested fixes for the first four three of these.
When you have a fix for the first three, I'll approve the package,
unless you want to update to the nted-0.24.1 release before review
completion.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-08 20:40 EST --- Incorporated your changes, and updated to 0.24.1 . Fixed the obvious compiler warnings, but the warnings about uninitialized variables are probably better left to upstream -- I've sent him the updated patches. Updated SRPM: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/music/nted-0.24.1-1.fc9.src.rpm (patches are available in the same directory) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||dimensional.de) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|l.com) |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-03 03:15 EST ---
Incorporated all the changes requested:
- uses $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
- documentation now in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}, de and en pages tagged
- compiler warnings fixed
Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/music/nted.spec
SRPM URL:
http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/for_review/music/nted-0.22.3-2.fc9.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]
||l.com)
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-04 03:47 EST ---
Review Guidelines MUST items:
OK: rpmlint produces no output
OK: naming guidelines
OK: %{name}.spec
??: Packaging Guidelines
FAIL: Licensing Guidelines
All the source files seem to be GPLv2+.
Help-About dialog is GPLv2+.
But COPYING is GPLv3
OK: License field match (GPLv2+)
OK: %doc COPYING
OK: spec file in en_US
OK: legible spec file
OK: Sources match upstream
OK: Compiles and builds on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=594520
N/A: Builds on all arches
OK: All build deps listed
OK: Uses %find_lang
N/A: no shared libs
N/A: not relocatable
OK: owns all created dirs
OK: no duplicate files in %files
OK: proper file permissions
OK: %clean with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK: consistent use of macros
OK: packagecontains code
OK: Those two HTML manuals are not necessarily large docs for a -doc pkg.
Oh, and they are needed as online help at runtime.
OK: %doc files must not affect runtime...
Ah, THAT is why the en and de HTML manuals are not %doc.
N/A: No header files
N/A: no static libs
N/A: no foo.pc file
N/A: no libfoo.so.1.1
N/A: devel package
N/A: no .la files
OK: desktop file
OK, but German translations to go with the German manual would be nice.
OK: Does not own other apps' files or dirs
OK: %install starts with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
OK: All filenames are valid ASCII and thus UTF-8
Review Guidelines SHOULD items:
FAIL: No COPYING for GPLv2
??: Are Summary(de) and %description(de) available?
OK: Builds in local mock
OK: Builds in Fedora koji on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64
OK: Appears to function as described.
N/A: No scriptlets
N/A: no subpackages
N/A: no foo.pc
N/A: no file deps
Packaging Guidelines:
??: Is there a reason not to use the standard compiler flags?
Maybe add CXXFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS CFLAGS=$RPM_OPT_FLAGS to the
make line?
FAIL: Creates both /usr/share/doc/%{name} and /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}
Adding --docdir=%{_docdir} to %configure might help.
- Wasn't there a way to mark the language of the de HTML manual?
Not that any of the policy requires that...
General remarks which do not affect the outcome of the review:
- I'd recommend to add a -b .slur to %patch1 -p1
- There are a number of compiler warnings which scream for a fix:
voice.cpp:2071: warning: suggest parentheses around within ||
chordorrest.cpp:2142: warning: format '%x' expects type 'unsigned int', but
argument 2 has type 'NedChordOrRest*'
chordorrest.cpp:2284: warning: comparisons like X=Y=Z do not have their
mathematical meaning
NEEDSWORK
And on we go to the next iteration.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 444257] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor
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: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
