Bug 2527

Summary: Review request:librcd - Russian Encoding Detection Library
Product: Package Reviews Reporter: A. Trande (sagitter) <trpost>
Component: Review RequestAssignee: RPM Fusion Package Review <rpmfusion-package-review>
Status: RESOLVED INVALID    
Severity: normal CC: musuruan, rpmfusion-package-review, trpost
Priority: P5    
Version: Current   
Hardware: All   
OS: GNU/Linux   
namespace:
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 30, 2528    

Description A. Trande (sagitter) 2012-10-13 18:33:43 CEST
Automatic encoding detection library for Russian/Ukrainian languages. Optimized
for very small words and phrases.

http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librcd.spec
http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librcd-0.1.13-0.fc17.src.rpm

Together with librcc, librcd is a dependence for MOC 'Music On Console Player'.

$ rpmlint librcd-0.1.13-0.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint librcd-0.1.13-0.fc17.i686.rpm
librcd.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/librcd-0.1.13/NEWS
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

'/usr/share/doc/librcd-0.1.13/NEWS' is empty from upstream.

This is my first RPM Fusion package; please, I need a sponsor.
Comment 1 Andrea Musuruane 2012-10-13 19:06:32 CEST
Can you please state why this package is not eligible for Fedora?

If NEWS file is empty there is no need to include it.

Do not use %makeinstall macro:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used

Buildroot, clean section and defattr are no longer required:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions

These lines are not required or necessary:
Prefix: %{_prefix}
Docdir: %{_docdir}

Changelog should reflect RPM changes but now it's empty.

Release number must start from 1:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
Comment 2 A. Trande (sagitter) 2012-10-13 19:16:27 CEST
(In reply to comment #1)
> Can you please state why this package is not eligible for Fedora?
> 
I don't open a review request for Fedora to keep librcd/librcc and MOC on the same repositories. Moreover librcd/librcc are libraries with a limited use. I think that it was the right choice.
Comment 3 A. Trande (sagitter) 2012-10-13 19:48:15 CEST
(In reply to comment #1)
> If NEWS file is empty there is no need to include it.
> 
> Do not use %makeinstall macro:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
> 
> Buildroot, clean section and defattr are no longer required:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#File_Permissions
> 
> These lines are not required or necessary:
> Prefix: %{_prefix}
> Docdir: %{_docdir}
> 
> Changelog should reflect RPM changes but now it's empty.
> 
> Release number must start from 1:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag

http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librcd.spec
http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/librcd-0.1.13-1.fc17.src.rpm

$ rpmlint librcd-0.1.13-1.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint librcd-0.1.13-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Thanks.
Comment 4 Andrea Musuruane 2012-10-14 10:08:12 CEST
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Can you please state why this package is not eligible for Fedora?
> > 
> I don't open a review request for Fedora to keep librcd/librcc and MOC on the
> same repositories. Moreover librcd/librcc are libraries with a limited use. I
> think that it was the right choice.

I'm sorry but we do not accept packages that can go in Fedora. RPM Fusion ships only packages that cannot be included in Fedora. Please close this review request and open it in Fedora (and do the same for librcc).
Comment 5 A. Trande (sagitter) 2012-10-14 12:12:52 CEST
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> > > Can you please state why this package is not eligible for Fedora?
> > > 
> > I don't open a review request for Fedora to keep librcd/librcc and MOC on the
> > same repositories. Moreover librcd/librcc are libraries with a limited use. I
> > think that it was the right choice.
> 
> I'm sorry but we do not accept packages that can go in Fedora. RPM Fusion ships
> only packages that cannot be included in Fedora. Please close this review
> request and open it in Fedora (and do the same for librcc).

Considering that libRCC/libRCD are not essential libraries to manage MOC, I will remove them as dependences.
In this moment I'm interested to include MOC on RPM Fusion. :)

Thank you.