[Bug 510668] Review Request: canorus - Music Score Editor

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510668


Christian Krause <chkr at plauener.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #19 from Christian Krause <chkr at plauener.de>  2009-09-19 15:30:06 EDT ---
I've reviewed the latest package:

(In reply to comment #17)
> Yay! Finally! I'm very sorry for the delay
> 
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > 
> > * naming: TODO
> > - name matches upstream
> > - spec file name matches package name
> > - snapshot release tag (assuming it is a post-release snapshot) should contain
> > the date (the svnrev can be appended, but the date is required)
> > ( according to
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages )
> > 
> 
> Added

Ok.

> > * License: TODO
> > - the package contains sources under the GPLv2, too:
> > src/import/pmidi/except.c (GPLv2 as published), most likely this means
> > that the complete package must be released as GPLv2
> > - the source package (and the built binary package) contain lots of examples
> > and so it is necessary to check their legal status - in the worst case they
> > must not only be stripped out from the binary but also from the sources - do
> > you have any information whether they are distributable?
> > - license file packaged: if the final package would be GPLv2, then we should
> > not package GPLv1
> > 
> 
> I removed the midi and the xml files which have unclear licenses. Also removed
> a can file with bad license. I created a new tarball and gave the instructions.
> Upstream told me the program itself is GPLv2.

Ok. Very minor glitch which will not hold the review: The comments about
re-packaging the tarball are not consistent with respect to the SVN revision.
The line with "wget" refers to release R1174. ;-)

> > * Locales handling: TODO
> > The package contains language files in a non-gettext format (*.qm files). 
> > Is it necessary to add them also via the %lang(xx) tag?
> > 
> 
> Yes, we do this with qt applications. For instance, I was asked in the past
> explicitly to mark the .qm files as %lang(xx) for qjackctl and qsynth

Ok.

(In reply to comment #18)
> I fixed the compilation flags issue:

Ok.

> Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/canorus.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/canorus-0.7-4.R1177.20090904svn.fc11.src.rpm  

All reported issues were fixed. I've done again a very small functional test
and the main functions of the program seems to be working reasonable well.

-> APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.