Updated SPEC and SRPM

Spec URL: <http://yufanyufan.googlepages.com/audacious-itouch.spec>
SRPM URL: <http://yufanyufan.googlepages.com/audacious-itouch-0.1-6.src.rpm>

Consider renaming it to audacious-plugins-itouch because this fits to the naming
scheme of the other audacious plugins in extras.

If this package should be renamed, then audacious-docklet also needs to be renamed.

If this package is going to be renamed, we still should add Provides: and
Obsoletes: for audacious-itouch to allow easy upgrading of 3rd party packages.

I don't think renaming this package is really necessary. According to the naming
guidlines an addon package "should prepend the "parent" package in its name, in
the format: %{parent}-%{child}." IMHO Using audaciuos as parent is perfectly ok.
Using audaciuos-plugins would indicate that this package stricktly depends on
audacious-plugins instead of audacious itself.
The only reason for this package to depend on audacious-plugins is that the
plugins package owns the dir this plugin is installed to.

I suggested to rename the package not because of the guidelines but because it
is confusing for me as a user that the plugins for audacious do not have a
consistent naming scheme. I did not know that audacious-plugins-* are all from
the same package.

I still think that audacious-itouch is a valid name for this package, since this
is the upstream name. Nevertheless - after reading the review request for
audacious-plugin-fc (bug #222648) and thinking about this more deeply, I like
the idea of getting this straight. This would also include renaming
audacious-docklet.

Yu, what you think?

To me it seems best to ask the packaging committee for a recomandation. Right
now it seems that "<package>-<pluginname>", "<package>-plugin-<pluginname>",
"<package>-plugins-<pluginname>" and "<package>-<pluginname>-plugin" for
different packages. I would prefer "<package>-plugins-<pluginname>" or
"<package>-plugin-<pluginname>", this would make it easier to install all
plugins, e.g. with yum install audacious-plugins-\* while audacious-\* also
matches the devel package.

I agree the plugin should be named audacious-plugin-itouch.
But to do this, I must modify the source tarbal, and repackage it. Do I have the
right to do that? 
Besides of that, I have made the package available for a while. When will it get
pass the review process? 

> I agree the plugin should be named audacious-plugin-itouch.
> But to do this, I must modify the source tarbal, and repackage
> it. Do I have the right to do that? 

Nah, you don't have to.  %setup accepts a switch, -n, which allows for 
changing the exact name of the folder in the source tarball.  In this case, 
simply change to this:
%setup -q -n audacious-itouch-%{version}

Quick Review (not official):
Since I can't download the source, this is just going to be a quick 
runthrough.
MUST Items: 
- rpmlint gives no errors.
- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- The package is licenced under an open-source licence (GPL).
- Licence info included in %doc.
- Spec file named %{name}.spec.
- Spec file written in en-US and is legible.
- The package compiles on i386.
- Build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires properly.
- No locales in the package.
- ldconfig isn't called, but the library is not located in the standard linker 
path.
- Package is not relocatable.
- Package owns all directories it creates.
- Permissions on files are set properly.
- Package has a proper %clean section.
- Spec file uses consistent macros.
- Package contains permissible content.
- All files in %doc are not necessary for program application.
- .la files are properly removed.
- Package does not create it's own directories.
- Package runs %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of install.
- All filenames are valid UTF-8.

Possible problems:
- As mentioned before, the package should probably be called 
audacious-plugins-itouch.
- The Source entry is actually a 404 now.

Anything happening here?  It's been well over a month since the last comment
without any response.

Yu is going to update the package and I will do the final review to get this
thing done.

Well, five more months have passed.  It's not as if this is time-sensitive, but
it would be nice to get some of these old submissions reviewed and closed out.

Yu, unfortunately this project is dead upstream, so I suggest we close this
review. Not even sure if it is still compatible with the current audacious API.

If you are still interesting in maintaining an audacious package you could do
audacious-show from http://nedudu.hu/?Programok:Audacious_pluginok. There
already was a review for it but the reporter has withdrawn the request, see bug
#234830

Setting this bug to NEEDINFO. If I don't hear anything from you within the next
2 weeks I'll close this review.

There's been no reply to this stalled review (comment #12).  Closing bug.