Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 189892
Summary: | Review Request: dssi - Disposable Soft Synth Interface | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Anthony Green <green> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Callum Lerwick <seg> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | seg |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-06-05 01:29:45 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779, 190027 |
Description
Anthony Green
2006-04-25 15:35:39 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi-0.9.1-1.src.rpm Updated to version 0.9.1. Now 64-bit clean. fluidsynth-dssi is a separate package now, which I'll submit shortly (based on nando's ccrma package). The example synths should probably be put in a dssi-examples package rather than the devel package. I think it needs to be: %dir %{_libdir}/dssi Because the example synths are actually ending up in *both* packages. There's duplicate liblo-devel buildreqs in there. Thanks. Updated bits here.... Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi-0.9.1-2.src.rpm After poking things a bit more, I think dssi-devel should Depend: on alsa-lib-devel, ladspa-devel, and liblo-devel. But not jack-devel, the dssi API itself does not use jack. Not so sure the examples package needs a versioned dependency on the main package. Any other dssi plugins wouldn't do so. And since its just a header file, I don't think the devel package actually needs to depend on the main package at all... (This would prevent mock from having to d/l and install dssi, which pulls in jack...) If you really wanted to reduce dependency bloat, you could split jack-dssi-host off into its own package, isolating the jack dependency, but I really don't think its worth going quite that far. Just rm-ing the .la files in %install seems marginally cleaner to me. And is what most other packages seem to do. Ooops. The .pc file needs to be in the devel package, not the examples. :) Yeah, thinks seem to work fine with dssi-devel not depending on dssi. (In reply to comment #4) > After poking things a bit more, I think dssi-devel should Depend: on > alsa-lib-devel, ladspa-devel, and liblo-devel. But not jack-devel, the dssi API > itself does not use jack. Done. > Not so sure the examples package needs a versioned dependency on the main > package. Any other dssi plugins wouldn't do so. The difference is that the examples are bundled with the main package sources. I don't think it hurts to keep them in sync. > And since its just a header file, I don't think the devel package actually needs > to depend on the main package at all... (This would prevent mock from having to > d/l and install dssi, which pulls in jack...) Done. I've also moved COPYING to the devel package, since it only applies to the header file. The README file covers everything else. > If you really wanted to reduce dependency bloat, you could split jack-dssi-host > off into its own package, isolating the jack dependency, but I really don't > think its worth going quite that far. Not done :-) > Just rm-ing the .la files in %install seems marginally cleaner to me. And is > what most other packages seem to do. Done. I've also fixed the .pc file problem. Thanks for your help! Updated bits here.... Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi-0.9.1-3.src.rpm AG Ah, licensing. According to the README, the header is LGPL, and jack-dssi-host is "BSD-style". COPYING is included for the header, but everything else seems to have the license in the source code. jack-dssi-host contains: /* * Copyright 2004 Chris Cannam, Steve Harris and Sean Bolton. * * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software * for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that the * above copyright notice and this permission notice are included in * all copies or substantial portions of the software. */ Does this count as BSD? Everything in the examples directory has something to the effect of "This example file is in the public domain." Note that dssi_osc_send and dssi_osc_update are in the main package, which otherwise seems like the right place to me. So, my guess is dssi-devel should be "License: LGPL", dssi-examples should be "License: Public Domain", and the main package "License: BSD/Public Domain" however mock complains about that one. Maybe it can just be "Distributable". Someone who is knowledgeable in licensing, please take a look at this. (In reply to comment #7) > /* > * Copyright 2004 Chris Cannam, Steve Harris and Sean Bolton. > * > * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software > * for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that the > * above copyright notice and this permission notice are included in > * all copies or substantial portions of the software. > */ > > Does this count as BSD? Yes, basically, I think so. > So, my guess is dssi-devel should be "License: LGPL", dssi-examples should be > "License: Public Domain", and the main package "License: BSD/Public Domain" > however mock complains about that one. Maybe it can just be "Distributable". I think BSD trumps Public Domain, so I'm just making it BSD. New bits here: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi-0.9.1-4.src.rpm Fixed jack-dssi-host for x86-64 hosts... Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi-0.9.1-5.src.rpm Alright, tibbs was going to post here, but then that's when BZ went down. He told me in IRC the BSD license is in fact the MIT license according to the OSI, which looks about right to me: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php He also said the license tag should accurately describe package's license, if rpmlint complains then its a bug in rpmlint. So the main package should probably be "MIT/Public Domain". Though I suppose public domain is "convertible" to any other license by definition... (In reply to comment #10) > He told me in IRC the BSD license is in fact the MIT license according to the > OSI, which looks about right to me: Fixed... Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi-0.9.1-6.src.rpm MUST items: - rpmlint: Ok $ rpmlint dssi-examples-0.9.1-6.fc5.i386.rpm W: dssi-examples no-documentation Ignorable. W: dssi-examples dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/less_trivial_synth jack-dssi-host W: dssi-examples dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/trivial_sampler jack-dssi-host W: dssi-examples dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/trivial_synth jack-dssi-host Intentional. Main package supplies jack-dssi-host. - Package name: Ok - Spec name: Ok - Meets packaging guidelines: Ok - License: Ok - Spec in American English: Ok - Spec legible: Ok - Sources match upstream: Ok - Builds: Ok - BuildRequires: Ok - Locales: Ok - ldconfig: Ok - Relocation: Ok - Directory ownership: Ok - %files: Ok - %clean: Ok - Macros: Ok - Code vs. Content: Ok - Documentation: Ok - devel package: Ok - .desktop file: Ok SHOULD: - Includes license text: Ok - Mock build: Ok - Builds on all archs: Built on i386, x86_64 - Package functional: Tested on i386, x86_64 - Scriptlets: Ok - Subpackages: Ok NEEDSWORK: Source0: needs to be [...]sf.net/sourceforge/dssi/[...] or else I get a 404. (Did SF rearrange their URLs recently?) Fix the URL before import, and this is APPROVED. Thanks! AG |