[Bug 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- 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=PMMO5A6ZnNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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=XG8DivKN94a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-29 01:38:44 -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #8 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc17 -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc16 -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc18 -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com --- $ rpmlint -i -v * harmonyseq.src: I: checking harmonyseq.src: I: checking-url http://harmonyseq.wordpress.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq.src: I: checking-url http://launchpad.net/harmonyseq/stable/0.16/+download/harmonySEQ-0.16.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq.i686: I: checking harmonyseq.i686: I: checking-url http://harmonyseq.wordpress.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary harmonySEQ Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. harmonyseq.x86_64: I: checking harmonyseq.x86_64: I: checking-url http://harmonyseq.wordpress.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary harmonySEQ Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. harmonyseq-debuginfo.i686: I: checking harmonyseq-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://harmonyseq.wordpress.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking harmonyseq-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://harmonyseq.wordpress.com/ (timeout 10 seconds) harmonyseq.spec: I: checking-url http://launchpad.net/harmonyseq/stable/0.16/+download/harmonySEQ-0.16.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Some warnings about missing man pages, no matter. The file headers in /src contain the newer versions clause, that's why the license is GPLv3+. Fix this, and your package is ready for a full review. I haven't found any other issues. -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks for taking this on. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/harmonyseq-0.16-9.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/harmonyseq.spec -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915
Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann mario.blaetterm...@gmail.com ---
-
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.
GPLv3+
[+] 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 *
c634d843fbe9c38b14b4d09f71a3c4f50ad56a2653197dbc9a2626e6b8a16ba5
harmonySEQ-0.16.tar.gz
c634d843fbe9c38b14b4d09f71a3c4f50ad56a2653197dbc9a2626e6b8a16ba5
harmonySEQ-0.16.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
[Bug 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 --- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com --- Thanks again for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: harmonyseq Short Description: A MIDI sequencer 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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 869915] Review Request: harmonyseq - a MIDI sequencer
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=869915 Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: harmonyseq |Review Request: harmonyseq |- a MID sequencer |- a MIDI sequencer -- 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
