Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 200941 - Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (&Jack client)
Summary: Review Request: SooperLooper, a realtime software looping sampler (&Jack client)
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Anthony Green
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-08-01 18:19 UTC by Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-06-09 03:54:49 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Updated spec file (deleted)
2006-09-09 01:14 UTC, Anthony Green
no flags Details

Description Fernando Lopez-Lezcano 2006-08-01 18:19:49 UTC
Spec URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/sooperlooper.spec
SRPM URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/sooperlooper-1.0.8-0.1.c.src.rpm
Description: 
SooperLooper is a realtime software looping sampler in the spirit of
Gibson's Echoplex Digital Pro. If used with a low-latency kernel and
the proper audio buffer configuration it is capable of truly realtime
live looping performance.

Another very nice realtime audio processor from Planet CCRMA (needs Jack).

-- Fernando

Comment 1 Anthony Green 2006-08-02 05:07:21 UTC
Hi Fernando --

I tried building this on FC5 and got...

Making all in src
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c/src'
 cd .. && /bin/sh /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c/missing --run
automake-1.9 --foreign  src/Makefile
configure.ac:27: version mismatch.  This is Automake 1.9.6,
configure.ac:27: but the definition used by this AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE
configure.ac:27: comes from Automake 1.9.4.  You should recreate
configure.ac:27: aclocal.m4 with aclocal and run automake again.
make[2]: *** [Makefile.in] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c/src'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c'
make: *** [all] Error 2
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.96186 (%build)

Do you not see this?

AG



Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-08-02 05:48:14 UTC
== Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
   Mock build for rawhide i386 is successfull with errors.
   Maybe you try adding autoconf in BR
   
* MUST Items:
      - dist tag is present.
      - rpmlint is silent
      - The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
      - The spec file name matching the base package sooperlooper, in the
format sooperlooper.spec.
      - This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
      - The spec file for the package is legible.
      - The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
      X This package dont have any License file.
      - The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct (9b34c7cb8fc6daa4c7a9c17004680dac
 sooperlooper-1.0.8c.tar.gz)
    - This package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms for i386
architecture.
      - This package did not contain any ExcludeArch.
      - This package owns all directories that it creates. 
      - This package did not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
      - This package  have a %clean section, which contains %{__rm} -rf
%{buildroot}.
      - This package used macros.
      - Document files are included.
      - Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
      - Desktop file installed correclty.

Also,
      * Source URL is present and working.
      * BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:       
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
      * I did not test package functionality

However i have question, when i saw build.log i found configure was called
nearly 5 times. What kind of this configuration script?

Comment 3 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-08-02 06:13:58 UTC
I think you should add NEWS,AUTHORS,Changelog files to your source code thru'
adding patch. then changes in %build
%build
# remove compiler option unrecognized by gcc4x
find . -type f -exec %{__perl} -p -i -e "s|-fmove-all-movables||g" {} \;
aclocal
autoheader
automake
autoconf
%configure
%{__make} %{?_smp_mflags}

Comment 4 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano 2006-08-02 17:25:30 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> I tried building this on FC5 and got...
> 
> Making all in src
> make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c/src'
>  cd .. && /bin/sh /usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c/missing --run
> automake-1.9 --foreign  src/Makefile
> configure.ac:27: version mismatch.  This is Automake 1.9.6,
> configure.ac:27: but the definition used by this AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE
> configure.ac:27: comes from Automake 1.9.4.  You should recreate
> configure.ac:27: aclocal.m4 with aclocal and run automake again.
> make[2]: *** [Makefile.in] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c/src'
> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/sooperlooper-1.0.8c'
> make: *** [all] Error 2
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.96186 (%build)
> 
> Do you not see this?

Not on my build system, but see below...

(In reply to comment #2)
> However i have question, when i saw build.log i found configure was called
> nearly 5 times. What kind of this configuration script?

Yes, I see that in my logs, I don't know what is triggering this. In my case the
build finishes successfully even with the warnings and repeated configure calls.
 And the software works. Weird. 

(In reply to comment #3)
> I think you should add NEWS,AUTHORS,Changelog files to your source code thru'
> adding patch. then changes in %build
> %build
> # remove compiler option unrecognized by gcc4x
> find . -type f -exec %{__perl} -p -i -e "s|-fmove-all-movables||g" {} \;
> aclocal
> autoheader
> automake
> autoconf
> %configure
> %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags}

Hmmm, if I do this to try to fix things then a make does trigger the error that
Anthony sees. Of course if I run aclocal/automake as suggested the error happens
again. Buggy auto* scripts?


Comment 5 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano 2006-08-02 17:42:44 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > However i have question, when i saw build.log i found configure was called
> > nearly 5 times. What kind of this configuration script?
> 
> Yes, I see that in my logs, I don't know what is triggering this. In my case the
> build finishes successfully even with the warnings and repeated configure calls.
>  And the software works. Weird. 
> 
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I think you should add NEWS,AUTHORS,Changelog files to your source code thru'
> > adding patch. then changes in %build
> > %build
> > # remove compiler option unrecognized by gcc4x
> > find . -type f -exec %{__perl} -p -i -e "s|-fmove-all-movables||g" {} \;
> > aclocal
> > autoheader
> > automake
> > autoconf
> > %configure
> > %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags}
> 
> Hmmm, if I do this to try to fix things then a make does trigger the error that
> Anthony sees. Of course if I run aclocal/automake as suggested the error happens
> again. Buggy auto* scripts?

I had not realized that autogen.sh was there (that is what should be used in
these cases, I think). Running it managed to bring everything up to date with
the newer autotools versions and pointed to a missing build requirement
(gettext-devel). 

After adding that I'm getting a complete build with no configure repeats or
other warnings. I'll actually test the resulting packages and will post newer
.spec and srpms when done. 


Comment 6 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano 2006-08-02 18:25:20 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> == Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
>       X This package dont have any License file.

Added COPYING file to %doc

>       * I did not test package functionality
> 
> However i have question, when i saw build.log i found configure was called
> nearly 5 times. What kind of this configuration script?

Fixed by calling autogen.sh (and including the proper build requirements)
New spec and source rpm available at:

Spec URL: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/sooperlooper.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/extras/sooperlooper-1.0.8-0.2.c.src.rpm



Comment 7 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-08-03 05:23:43 UTC
Still errors in this package

Checking basic compilation tools ...

You do not have pkg-config correctly installed. You cannot build SooperLooper
without this tool.

Try adding pkgconfig in BuildRequires

Comment 8 Paul Howarth 2006-08-03 07:04:19 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> Still errors in this package
> 
> Checking basic compilation tools ...
> 
> You do not have pkg-config correctly installed. You cannot build SooperLooper
> without this tool.
> 
> Try adding pkgconfig in BuildRequires

If that fixes the build, then it probably points to a bug in one of the devel
packages required to build this one. Any devel package containing a pkgconfig
data file (.pc file) should itself Require: pkgconfig, so anything building
using that devel package shouldn't need a buildreq of pkgconfig itself.

The packaging committee recently voted to add this to the packaging guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/IRCLog20060706

So if you find any devel package pulled in as a buildreq by this package (look
in the root.log from a mock build for a list of packages) that has a .pc file
but no dependency on pkgconfig, I suggest you raise a bug on that package and
add that bug to the "Bug 200941 depends on" field below.


Comment 9 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano 2006-08-03 17:44:09 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> Still errors in this package
> 
> Checking basic compilation tools ...
> 
> You do not have pkg-config correctly installed. You cannot build SooperLooper
> without this tool.

You are corrrect but pkgconfig is being pulled in by other dependencies. See
below for more details. 

> Try adding pkgconfig in BuildRequires

This is not happening in my build system (mach based). 

In my case pkgconfig is being pulled in by either:
  jack-audio-connection-kit-devel
  libsigc++-devel
  libsndfile-devel
  libsamplerate-devel
  alsa-lib-devel
(I tested this by installing the build dependencies one by one manually in my
build system and checking on whether pkgconfig was installed as well)

Looks like liblo-devel is _not_ pulling in pkgconfig but has a .pc file:
  /usr/lib/pkgconfig/liblo.pc
(version liblo-devel-0.23-6.fc5)
Also appears to be the case for libxml2-devel (libxml2-devel-2.6.23-1.2)

What I don't understand is why, in your case, pkgconfig is not being pulled in
by the _other_ build requirements? It is happening in my build system. 

Exactly what build system are you using and how is it configured?


Comment 10 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-08-04 03:42:29 UTC
I did mock build for development version for FC6. There i get that error but
when i check my build system strange i found pkg-config is installed/pulled
already and installed under
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-core/root/usr/bin/pkg-config

I am really confused on this.


Comment 11 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano 2006-08-04 17:11:32 UTC
(In reply to comment #10)
> I did mock build for development version for FC6. 

Does this happen on fc5?

> There i get that error but
> when i check my build system strange i found pkg-config is installed/pulled
> already and installed under
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-core/root/usr/bin/pkg-config
> 
> I am really confused on this.

Could you please post the error log from the build? I don't get that error so I
can't know where it is happening and what is the surrounding context. It could
be that the name of the pkgconfig script of one of the dependencies has changed
in > fc5 and that's why an error is being reported. 


Comment 12 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-08-05 04:55:18 UTC
i have FC5 system when i give
rpmbuild -ba sooperlooper.spec it worked fine. Created SRPM,RPMS
when i did mock build using FC6 development repository i got following errors in
build.log
Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.52473
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd sooperlooper-1.0.8c
+ LANG=C
+ export LANG
+ unset DISPLAY
+ find . -type f -exec /usr/bin/perl -p -i -e 's|-fmove-all-movables||g' '{}' ';'
+ ./autogen.sh

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Checking basic compilation tools ...

You do not have pkg-config correctly installed. You cannot build SooperLooper
without this tool.
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.52473 (%build)


RPM build errors:
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.52473 (%build)


Comment 13 Anthony Green 2006-09-04 23:35:10 UTC
I'm updating the -devel versions of my libraries (dssi, liblo, etc) to Require
pkgconfig as per the recent decision.  This should also solve the mock build
problem here.

Comment 14 Anthony Green 2006-09-09 01:14:04 UTC
Created attachment 135893 [details]
Updated spec file

The attached spec file builds cleanly in mock on rawhide.

A few other problems/questions....

1. glibc reports a bug in liblo when you run it.  I have a patch for liblo and
will respin a new one for Fedora Extras shortly.

2. The gui comes up and starts the engine, however, very soon afterwards it
reports a Lost Connection: "Lost connection to SooperLooper engine.  See the
Preferences->Connections tab to start a new one".  Has anybody seen this
before?

Comment 15 Anthony Green 2006-09-09 01:28:55 UTC
(In reply to comment #14)
> 2. The gui comes up and starts the engine, however, very soon afterwards it
> reports a Lost Connection: "Lost connection to SooperLooper engine.  See the
> Preferences->Connections tab to start a new one".  Has anybody seen this
> before?

This was a DNS problem on my system.  Ignore.



Comment 16 Anthony Green 2006-09-09 02:03:11 UTC
I think there are only a couple of minor issues.  See the lines that start with
'X'.  This assumes the tweaks in my uploaded spec file are accepted.

* package meets packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* 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.
* source files match upstream. md5sum...
9b34c7cb8fc6daa4c7a9c17004680dac  sooperlooper-1.0.8c.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are almost proper.
  - Look at the changes I made in the spec file I attached in Comment #14 to 
    handle FC releases > 5.
* package builds in mock.
* rpmlint says:
  W: sooperlooper mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
  I just use the emacs untabify command to clean these things up.
* final provides and requires are sane:
sooperlooper-1.0.8-0.2.c.fc6.i386.rpm
  sooperlooper = 1.0.8-0.2.c.fc6
  =
  libasound.so.2
  libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)
  libjack.so.0
  liblo.so.0
  libncurses.so.5
  libsamplerate.so.0
  libsamplerate.so.0(libsamplerate.so.0.0)
  libsigc-1.2.so.5
  libsndfile.so.1
  libsndfile.so.1(libsndfile.so.1.0)
  libstdc++.so.6
  libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
  libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)
  libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0
  libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)
  libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0
  libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0
  libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0
  libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)
  libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0
  libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)
  libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.2)
  libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0
  libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)
  libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0
  libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0
  libxml2.so.2
  libz.so.1
* shared libraries not present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
X Should Require hicolor-icon-theme since it places an icon in a directory owned
by that package.  This is something I just learned about myself, and plan on
cleaning up my old packages.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present
* scriptlets OK.
* 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 pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
X .desktop file is installed properly, but should refer to "SooperLooper", not
"Sooperlooper".
* not a web app.

Comment 17 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano 2006-09-09 19:55:39 UTC
(In reply to comment #16)
> I think there are only a couple of minor issues.  See the lines that start with
> 'X'.  This assumes the tweaks in my uploaded spec file are accepted.
> 
> X BuildRequires are almost proper.
>   - Look at the changes I made in the spec file I attached in Comment #14 to 
>     handle FC releases > 5.

Should this be "%{fedora}" >= 4 or just ommit it? I think current Fedora Extras
for 4 and 5 has wxGTK as the name of the package with the proper
obsoletes/provides for wxGTK2, right? Is this the version being used by your
build system?

> * rpmlint says:
>   W: sooperlooper mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
>   I just use the emacs untabify command to clean these things up.

Fixed now in my copy, thanks.

> X Should Require hicolor-icon-theme since it places an icon in a directory owned
> by that package.  This is something I just learned about myself, and plan on
> cleaning up my old packages.

First time I hear about this. Makes sense as this is not something that could be
done automatically by rpm, right? Lots of packages will need this...

> X .desktop file is installed properly, but should refer to "SooperLooper", not
> "Sooperlooper".

Fixed, thanks again. 

I'll wait to hear from you on the wxGTK/wxGTK2 name before releasing another
spec/srpm. 


Comment 18 Anthony Green 2006-09-10 04:53:05 UTC
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > I think there are only a couple of minor issues.  See the lines that start with
> > 'X'.  This assumes the tweaks in my uploaded spec file are accepted.
> > 
> > X BuildRequires are almost proper.
> >   - Look at the changes I made in the spec file I attached in Comment #14 to 
> >     handle FC releases > 5.
> 
> Should this be "%{fedora}" >= 4 or just ommit it? I think current Fedora Extras
> for 4 and 5 has wxGTK as the name of the package with the proper
> obsoletes/provides for wxGTK2, right? 

Yes, I think that's right.

> Is this the version being used by your
> build system?

Yes.


Comment 19 Anthony Green 2007-03-17 20:49:31 UTC
Hi nando... it's been a few months now.  Were you going to send an updated
package?  We were close to wrapping this up...

AG


Comment 20 Kevin Fenzi 2007-06-02 03:28:34 UTC
Any word on this package review? 

Anthony: Under the new procedure, the fedora-review flag should be ? if you are
in the process of reviewing the package. I will go ahead and set it now. 

Fernando: Do you still wish to submit this package? 
If I don't hear back from you in a week I will go ahead and close this... 

Comment 21 Kevin Fenzi 2007-06-09 03:54:49 UTC
Fernando: I am going to go ahead and close this now. 

If you decide you want to continue this submission, please feel free to re-open
this request or file a new one. 


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.