Bug 1958

COPYING file changed to the v2 version of the GPL like gnome-mplayer and gecko-mediaplayer. Anjuta created that file using the wrong license.

I think the spec if reversed on with_gconf. It should be with_gconf on < 15 and without_gconf >= 15 

Thanks for fixing the copying file.
Wrt. the conditionals they just work in this counter-intuitive way:
http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/ConditionalBuilds

New release:
Spec URL: http://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/gmtk.spec
SRPM URL: http://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/gmtk-1.0.5b1-2.fc15.src.rpm

Changes:
- Updated to upstream 1.0.5b1 sources

Sources should contain proper license file now.

I was wondering if it would make sense to put this package in Fedora proper. It does not seem to have too much sense, and rolling out updates could be a pain. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, though.

Because it depends on mplayer for the media player portion, I don't think it can be in Fedora proper.

Hi Julian,

I can review this for you - on first looks you could consider dropping the gconf condition clause as Fedora 14 will be EOL very soon. You also need to add an explicit requires: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package

rpmlint gives a warning on the URL but I can wget it just fine.

Sure, I can drop the f14 stuff. The URL problem is common for google code, I am not sure what is the reason for it.
I am not sure what you mean by explicit requires - missing %{?_isa}, or something else?

New release:
Spec URL: http://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/gmtk.spec
SRPM URL: http://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/gmtk-1.0.5b1-3.fc16.src.rpm

Changes:
- Removed GConf logic since F-14 is going EOL soon
- Added %%{?_isa} to explicit Requires

Hi Julian,

All good except rpmlint gives a warning about INSTALL files in %doc

Required
========

[-] Not applicable
[+] OK
[!] Attention
[ ] Not done

[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines 
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] Approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines 
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license 
[+] License file must be included in %doc
[+] The spec file must be written in American English
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
sha1sum:f3968d678724a0e0c0af811aec971d83839fe3b4 
[+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one arch
[+] Proper use of ExcludeArch 
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[+] 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
[+] A package must own all directories that it creates
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once 
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly
[+] Each package must consistently use macros
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section 
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

Should Items
============
[+] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to
include it
[-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the
package spec if available
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
[ ] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[+] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[+] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[+] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
None available

gmtk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mplayer -> player, m player, mp layer
gmtk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mediaplayer -> media player, media-player, hypermedia
gmtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mplayer -> player, m player, mp layer
gmtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mediaplayer -> media player, media-player, hypermedia
gmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mplayer -> player, m player, mp layer
gmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mediaplayer -> media player, media-player, hypermedia
gmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mplayer -> player, m player, mp layer
gmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mediaplayer -> media player, media-player, hypermedia
gmtk.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/gmtk-1.0.5b1/INSTALL
gmtk-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.

This package is APPROVED

Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: gmtk
Short Description: Library of common functions and widgets for gnome-mplayer and gecko-mediaplayer
Owners: belegdol
Branches: F-16 F-15
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: [free]