[Bug 189656] Review Request: lilypond - A typesetting system for music notation

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: lilypond - A typesetting system for music notation


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189656





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-05-15 16:40 EST -------
You're right, that was a trivial patch; sorry I couldn't have been more help in
debugging it.

In any case, guile in development is still busted, but a mock build on FC5
x86_64 ran through to completion.  (!)  Now, down to the review.

Issues:
Please consider removing BuildRequires: gcc-c++.  This is no longer a blocker,
but it tends to annoy folks.

rpmlint complains:
W: lilypond file-not-utf8 /usr/share/info/music-glossary.info.gz

This is odd because music-glossary.tely explicitly says: @documentencoding utf-8
I'm not completely sure what should be done here; there are a few international
characters in that file; you could try running

iconv -f iso-8859-1 -t utf-8 music-glossary.info > music-glossary.info.utf8
mv music-glossary.info.utf8 music-glossary.info

in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_infodir}.

You should consider ghosting the .pyo files instead of shipping them in the package.

Nothing in the input directory seems to be shipped.  Might it be worth it to
package these up in an -examples subpackage or something like that?

I noticed this in the build.log; I wonder if this indicates a problem:
Compiling fdl.texi...
fdl.texi is up to date.
lilypond-book.py: warning: option --psfonts not used
lilypond-book.py: warning: processing with dvips will have no fonts

DVIPS usage:
    dvips -h ./out/lilypond.psfonts ./out/lilypond.dvi
lilypond-book.py (GNU LilyPond) @TOPLEVEL_VERSION@

Perhaps I'm just missing something, but I'm not seeing the installed menual.  I
see a few relatively small info files but for some reason I thought lilypond had
an impressively large manual.  Is it all contained in a few info files or is
something being left out?


Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible; license text is included in the package.
* source files match upstream:
   7053cad744c6c62d5895983b67220e26  lilypond-2.8.2.tar.gz
   7053cad744c6c62d5895983b67220e26  lilypond-2.8.2.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
O BuildRequires are proper (well, perhaps gcc-c++ could go)
* package builds in mock (FC5, x86_64).
X rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane.
O shared libraries are present, but they are internal to the Python interface
and so ldconfig does not need to be run.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
O doesn't own any directories it shouldn't (owns /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp and
/usr/share/vim/vim70, but this is acceptable).
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
O %check is not present.  There seems to be some sort of regression test, but
I'm not sure how you'd run it.
* scriptlets are present and sane.
* code, not content.
? not sure about the documentation at this point.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
X Python .pyo files are present and not ghosted.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.