Bug 43

-Can you repack the package with the newest upstream (1.6.1) please?
-Rpmlint is not happy about the debug package. Can you fix those issues?
-Also in the SPEC file, you remove the non-GPL part of the code. An explanation why this package should be at rpmfusion would be nice.
Thanks

SRPMS:
http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/mixxx/mixxx-1.6.1-1.fc8.kwizart.src.rpm
SPEC:
http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/mixxx/mixxx.spec
Summary: Mixxx is an open source software for DJ'ing

- Updated to 1.6.1
- Fixed perms for source and script
- rpmlint W hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/mixxx-1.6.1/src/.obj can be ignored.

>-Also in the SPEC file, you remove the non-GPL part of the code.
I didn't get what you have meant by this. The only code I've removed was portaudio internal dependencies. There is no reason to provide it since we use the portaudio-devel which is recent enought.

This package requires libmad as a mandatory requirement. (Thus, it can only be present in rpmfusion free section).

I did not do an extensive review since the package was not up-to-date. I figured that you remove portaudio deps because it is non-GPL, but I see now that Fedora already has them in official repos. Also I didn't catch the libmad requirement in the first pass. It seems that you are right about rpmfusion. I will go through the updated package today.

### means comments and questions
*** means issues, they need to be corrected

FEDORA GUIDELINES:
source files match upstream:
1dc04e9d628c96c75a219384252d990659e9dd0a1f23aa72b8f0774395771df1  mixxx-1.6.1-src.tar.gz
package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
***specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and but uses macros ***inconsistently.
***Two portions from the spec file:
***...
***chmod +x $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/mixxx/midi/convert
***...
***%{_datadir}/%{name}/
*** Please use the macros consistently (e.g. %{name}) in this example.
dist tag is present.
build root is correct.
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
license field matches the actual license.
license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
latest version is being packaged.
###BuildRequires are proper
###One of the plugins require libdjconsole-devel which is not available. But this plugin is not enabled by default, so I think it's fine.
compiler flags are appropriate.
%clean is present.
package installs properly
package uninstalls properly
debuginfo package looks complete.
###is rpmlint silent?
###No but the the warning is from the debug-info package:
mixxx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/mixxx-1.6.1/src/.obj
###which can be ignored
final provides and requires are sane.
owns the directories it creates.
doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
no duplicates in %files.
file permissions are appropriate.
no scriptlets present.
code, not content.
documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
no headers.
no libtool .la droppings.
###GUI app: desktop file placed in proper place. no mime-types installed. 
###desktop-file-install called properly. I just have one question here: What
###is this for? : --remove-category Application 

RPMFUSION
The package can be published in rpmfusion because it requires(build-requires) libmad(libmad-devel), which is not available through Fedora but through rpmfusion.

----
The package can be approved when the above issue is fixed. (It can even be approved now if we are not as strict as Fedora in terms of packaging guidelines.)
But since I'm not sponsored yet, I can't do this. I hope this guide helps the actual reviewer.

Dear kwizart,
Since I am sponsored now I can approve the package if you address my questions/comments.
Thanks. 

(In reply to comment #4)
> FEDORA GUIDELINES:

> ***specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and but uses macros
> ***inconsistently.
Can be fixed indeed, but would be better to have it removed on new mixxx version.
> ###BuildRequires are proper
> ###One of the plugins require libdjconsole-devel which is not available. But
> this plugin is not enabled by default, so I think it's fine.
Support for this package is optional and might be very uncommon since it requires special hardware for mixing. As i don't have such hardware, I cannot test the package or the mixxx option in a reasonable limited time.
Support for this might be enabled later in the mixxx package lifetime.
> ###No but the the warning is from the debug-info package:
> mixxx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/src/debug/mixxx-1.6.1/src/.obj
I've requested advices on #fedora-devel for this. it seeems safe.
> ###GUI app: desktop file placed in proper place. no mime-types installed. 
> ###desktop-file-install called properly. I just have one question here: What
> ###is this for? : --remove-category Application 
Nowadays, Application is forbidden in the Category field.

Thank you. The package meets Fedora and Rpmfusion standards and hence

------------------------------------------------------------
This package (kmixxx) is APPROVED by oget for rpmfusion-free
------------------------------------------------------------

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The package name is mixxx, not kmixxx, my bad.

Package name is mixxx (not kmixxx) ;)
Thx for your review...

Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: mixxx
Short Description: Mixxx is open source software for DJ'ing
Owners: kwizart
Branch: EL-5 F-9 F-8
InitialCC:
----------------------
License tag: free

cvs done.

package imported