I take the review of this this little but useful software. The spec seems to be ok, but refering to the INSTALL doc, Gtk2 is missing as a "BuildRequires".

(In reply to comment #1)
> I take the review of this this little but useful software. 

Thanks a lot!

> The spec seems to be
> ok, but refering to the INSTALL doc, Gtk2 is missing as a "BuildRequires".

Indeed. Usually gtk2-devel is so redundant that it gets pulled in automatically, but in this case it might be better to list is explicitly.

I have the following error when i build the package (rpmbuild -ba) :
>checking for GTK... configure: error: Package requirements (gtk+-2.0 >= 2.12.0 >gmodule-export-2.0) were not met:
>
>No package 'gtk+-2.0' found
The "gtk2" is installed. It's a problem with my config or something else (need a makefile patch maybe) ?

As is sais in comment #2 this needs to be gtk2-devel.

lxsession-edit-0.1-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lxsession-edit-0.1-1.fc10

lxsession-edit-0.1-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lxsession-edit-0.1-1.fc9

Oops, wrong bug number in the update, sorry.

My bad, I misread. With gtk2-devel, LXMusic build without problems (well, with some warnings). But is GTK2 needed to run LXMusic (all the information I find was confuse), if so it should be a dependency, isn't it ?

No need to list gtk2 as a Requires:, rpm will pick up requirements for libraries automatically:

$ rpm -qp --requires lxmusic-0.2.3-1.fc10.i386.rpm | grep gtk
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0  
$ rpm -q --whatprovides libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0  
gtk2-2.14.7-1.fc10.i386
$

So as you can see the package gets installed automatically (if it isn't already). 
If you have more questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Great. But "gtk2-devel" is really needed as a BuildRequires, if not Mock doesn't build (tested with a fedora-rawhide).

Weird, IIRC i tested it. Anyway:

http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/lxmusic-0.2.3-2.fc11.src.rpm
http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/review/lxmusic.spec

Ping?

I'm sorry, I've had a problem with Koji (in particularly the certificates). I think I could trust Mock about the success of the building, so I APPROVE this package.

Usually a review is more than just cheking if it builds in mock, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

I'm not in a hurry, feel free to ether re-review this package or let someone else do it.

My mistake, my review was quite informal (even if I check every MUST in the review list) as I was in a hurry with the translation. I will made a formal and rigourous review as soon as possible.

Well, if you checked all the must items it's ok for me. I was under the impression that you only checked for building in mock.

Do what you like. If you have spare time for this review, go for it, otherwise I'll initiate the CVS admin procedure.

Package Review:
==================================
----------------------------------
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
----------------------------------
==> OK (no output)
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must meet the  Packaging Guidelines.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
----------------------------------
==> NOT OK
The actual license seems to be "GPLv2" and not "GPLv2+"

----------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
----------------------------------
==> OK (Tested on F10 and Rawhide i386)
----------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. 
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines. 
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
----------------------------------
==> OK
----------------------------------
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
----------------------------------
==> OK (builds fine on F10 and Rawhide i386)
----------------------------------
SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. 
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------
SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this
is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
----------------------------------
==> N/A
----------------------------------

Summary
==================================
Change the license in the license field
==================================

So you remove a "+" and I confirm my APPROVING

Thanks a lot for this review.

(In reply to comment #17)
> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
> ----------------------------------
> ==> NOT OK
> The actual license seems to be "GPLv2" and not "GPLv2+"

COPYING included in this package is GPLv2 and there is no way to distinguish, it this means "GPLv2 only" or "GPLv2+". In cases like these you need to look at the sourcecode and src/utils.c states:

 *      Copyright 2008 PCMan <pcman.tw>
 *      
 *      This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 *      it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 *      the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 *      (at your option) any later version.

So the actual license really is GPLv2+.

(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
> > ----------------------------------
> > ==> NOT OK
> > The actual license seems to be "GPLv2" and not "GPLv2+"
> 
> COPYING included in this package is GPLv2 and there is no way to distinguish,
> it this means "GPLv2 only" or "GPLv2+". In cases like these you need to look at
> the sourcecode and src/utils.c states:
> 
>  *      Copyright 2008 PCMan <pcman.tw>
>  *      
>  *      This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>  *      it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>  *      the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
>  *      (at your option) any later version.
> 
> So the actual license really is GPLv2+.  
Thanks for the advice, I didn't think about checking the source code.
So you can begin the CVS procedure.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: lxmusic
Short Description: Lightweight XMMS2 client with simple user interface
Owners: cwickert
Branches: F-9 F-10
InitialCC:

cvs done.

lxmusic-0.2.3-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lxmusic-0.2.3-2.fc10

lxmusic-0.2.3-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lxmusic-0.2.3-2.fc9

lxmusic-0.2.3-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

lxmusic-0.2.3-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.