[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 02:03 EST --- yes i discussed that on #fedora-extras with kevin. I thought the new procedure is followed to all older review request bugs also and i only check current state of bug before sending any comments. So thought maybe while creating this bug it got assigned to thl but blocker bug clearly indicated that its not under FE-REVIEW. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-01 10:22 EST --- (In reply to comment #26) Ok After seeing peoples getting sponserships within 2 days who claim to be newbies for this procedure, I think i did not deserved then to be Sponserer so i think its time to make Official reviewers burden less by closing this bug. I understand yur frustration at not being sponsored yet, despite being very active and doing everything asked of you, especially when you see other new contributors getting sponsored very quickly. Having already sponsored a few people, I've become very careful to make sure that I think any new contributor I sponsor now is fully aware of how how to work within Fedora Extras and not make too many mistakes (since I as their sponsor would end up having to fix them, which I've had to do in the past). As a result, it may be that the bar for being sponsored by me is higher than it would be for some other sponsors. Other issues for me include the fact that I've recently changed jobs and have less time to review submissions than I used to have (I've only done one review in the past couple of months I think). There's also the problem that I haven't got any means of testing either this or the qcwebcam submission. On the plus side, it looks like someone else may also be willing to sponsor you (Kevin in Bug #199254). You might refer Kevin to this ticket and the qcwebcam one as other examples of your work. Once you're sponsored, any contributor will then be able to review these submissions and it's more likely that someone with the right hardware will appear and be able to do that for you. So if I was you I'd reopen these tickets. They'll get in eventually, but that won't happen if the tickets are closed. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-02 01:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #28) And i don't understand why you are taking resposibility to comment here. I thinks its THL's responsibility to answer here. I request Thorsten Leemhuis to comment here as it looks its assigned to him. Thorsten's address was the default one assigned to new review requests ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is now used for this purpose). Having a buig assigned to that address means that nobody has yet decided to formally review a package, that's all. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-31 05:38 EST --- The only remaining warning is: libng/plugins/read-avi.c: In function 'avi_find_chunk': libng/plugins/read-avi.c:217: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'off_t' rpmlint complains: W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/flt-disor.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/conv-mjpeg.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/conv-audio.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/flt-gamma.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/read-avi.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/linedoubler.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/flt-invert.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/bilinear.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/linear-blend.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/drv0-v4l2.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/cubic.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/drv1-v4l.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/write-avi.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/snd-oss.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/drv0-v4l2-old.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/lib64/streamer/flt-smooth.so: File format not recognized W: streamer objdump-failed objdump: /tmp/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm.21567/usr/bin/streamer: File format not recognized I don't know why that's happening. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-31 07:20 EST --- But on my i386 machine i didn't get any warning in compilation or error in rpmlint output. sorry i don't have x86_64 machine. How can i solve this problem now?? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-13 04:52 EST --- Ok i have updated Source tarball. I don't have 64 bit machine but from warning messages i changed code and now updated files are at Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/streamer/streamer.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/streamer/streamer-1.1.4-1.fc5.src.rpm can you again review this new package for x86_64 arch? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 03:55 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) - Added wildcard in files section I was genuinely asking if it would be better to use the wildcard, or have the multiple single files, I'd be interested to see an answer from an experienced reviewer on this ... I have changed Source URL now. I will be happy if you please do review for x86_64 architecture. ok, will do so this evening, would appreciate a review in return https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179758 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 10:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #17)
* package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
It amuses me that meeting the packaging guidlines is an item within the
packaging guidelines checklist
The package review guidelines is not actually a checklist of things in the
packaging guidelines. The packaging guidelines as a whole encompasses a bunch of
pages on the wiki (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging), which include
the main packaging guidelines, the package naming guidelines, plus a number of
pages on language-specific guidelines. Extras contributors are expected to have
read the main packaging and naming guidelines and be familar with them
(committing them all to memory isn't expected but it's worth re-reading them
from time to time as a refresher and to catch up with changes). The review
guidelines page just includes a checklist of things that apply to most packages.
* All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of
those
as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
Some BRs are specified, I have not checked the list is exhaustive
Building the package in mock is a good way to test this.
* If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of
that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
no such statement, assume this is correct.
This relates to the use of the Prefix: rpm tag. If present, the package is
telling rpm that it's supposed to be relocatable (whether it actually is or not
depends on how the rest of the package is built). Some packagers tend to include
the Prefix: tag because they've copied the spec from some template that
included it. This check is there to catch that mistake.
* A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
ok, all files explicitly listed, no wildcards used at all
would it be considered neater to use %{_libdir}/streamer/*.so instead?
This check is looking for instances of the same file being installed in multiple
different places (e.g. a README installed in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} and
also %{datadir}/%{name}) rather than being included more than once in the %files
list (which rpmbuild will warn about actually).
(In reply to comment #20)
(In reply to comment #19)
- Added wildcard in files section
I was genuinely asking if it would be better to use the wildcard, or have the
multiple single files, I'd be interested to see an answer from an experienced
reviewer on this ...
This is really a matter of personal preference and may vary from package to
package. In general I like to enumerate all of the files individually,
particularly for binaries, as this results in unpackaged file errors if you
build a later version of the package that contains additional files, something
that you really should know about as the new files might clash with some other
package. An alternative approach here would be to use rpmdiff to compare old and
new packages. For some packages though, the list of files would simply be
unmanagable if done individually, so using a wildcard is the only sane option.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 18:46 EST --- (In reply to comment #19) - Corrected Changelog entry - Added wildcard in files section - Changed Source Package Path - Clean the SPEC file look I have changed Source URL now. I will be happy if you please do review for x86_64 architecture. changelog version tidy-up has silenced rpmlint Source0: now points to correct location $ md5sum /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/streamer-1.1.3.tar.bz2 ce10341fb74870e4b69fe2c778cd17b1 /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/streamer-1.1.3.tar.bz2 $ wget http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/streamer/streamer-1.1.3.tar.bz2 $ md5sum /tmp/streamer-1.1.3.tar.bz2 ce10341fb74870e4b69fe2c778cd17b1 /tmp/streamer-1.1.3.tar.bz2 srpm is built from the specified source file installed http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/streamer/streamer-1.1.3-2.fc5.src.rpm on x86_64 FC5+updates compiler spits out a few 64bit related warnings (mainly %llx format strings in printf expecting, but not receiving long long arguments) libng/plugins/read-avi.c: In function 'avi_add_movi': libng/plugins/read-avi.c:66: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 6 has type 'off_t' libng/plugins/read-avi.c:66: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 7 has type 'off_t' libng/plugins/read-avi.c: In function 'avi_find_chunk': libng/plugins/read-avi.c:216: warning: format '%llx' expects type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 5 has type 'off_t' libng/plugins/drv0-v4l2-old.c: In function 'xioctl': libng/plugins/drv0-v4l2-old.c:234: warning: format '%Ld' expects type 'long long int', but argument 11 has type 'stamp_t' however these will probably get type promoted ok, and don't stop the build, could be cleaned up with a patch though, at minimum casting arguments to long long to silence the warnings. spec file now cleaner to my eye I've got a creative webcam pro somewhere, which has V4L1 drivers, but not V4L2 drivers from what I remember, I'll dig it out and check if the program can actuall do any streaming ... -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 19:54 EST ---
Review of http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1.3-1.fc5.src.rpm
* rpmlint must be run on every package.
$rpmlint -v /home/andy/Desktop/streamer-1.1.3-1.fc5.src.rpm
I: streamer checking
$ rpmlint -v /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/streamer-1.1.3-1.i386.rpm
I: streamer checking
W: streamer incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1-3-1 1.1.3-1
$ rpmlint -v /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/streamer-debuginfo-1.1.3-1.i386.rpm
I: streamer-debuginfo checking
suggest correcting version 1.1-3-1 to 1.1.3-1 likewise 1.1-2-1 to 1.1.2-1
otherwise ok
* package must be named according to the guidelines.
ok
* spec file name must match the base package name
ok
* package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
It amuses me that meeting the packaging guidlines is an item within the
packaging guidelines checklist
* package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license
spec file = GPL
tarball contains licence file = GPL v2
* The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
most source files themselves do contain copyright, but not licencing info,
of those that do, only one or two clearly state GPL,
others in contrib-plugin directory seem to make a weaker GPL claim.
* If package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file
must be included in %doc.
ok
* The spec file must be written in American English.
ok
* The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
ok, to be ultrapicky, add a space between Name: and streamer?
suggestion, make Description: slightly more, err, descriptive
e.g. use Command line tool for streaming capture, including audio. from the
README file.
* The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
cannot test because source
http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1.3.tar.bz2
does not exist
* The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one supported architecture.
compiled and build on i386 (FC6T1/rawhide)
* If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to
the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries
during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment
until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
[WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc
nothing excluded, I can test on FC5/x86_64 later, does the packager know how
it performs on other architectures?
* All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those
as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
Some BRs are specified, I have not checked the list is exhaustive
* The spec file MUST handle locales properly
No locales in package
* If the package contains shared library files located in the dynamic linker's
default paths, that package must call ldconfig
ok, .so files in own directory only, not added to linker path
* If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of
that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
no such statement, assume this is correct.
* A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard ([WWW]
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that
those directories exist.
ok (/usr/lib/streamer and /usr/share/doc/streamer-version)
* A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
ok, all files explicitly listed, no wildcards used at all
would it be considered neater to use %{_libdir}/streamer/*.so
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 19:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source cannot test because source http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1.3.tar.bz2 does not exist However previous versions of streamer source tarballs appear to be in http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/streamer/ directory, rather than http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 06:27 EST --- I see you've made a few comments on other package reviews, but unless I've missed something these appear to be limited to posting the output of rpmlint. This is just domonstrating that you can can use bugzilla and rpmlint. What I'd really like to see is a detailed review of a package (use the package review guidelines from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines). If you find problems with a package, don't just point them out, make a suggestion for how to fix the problem (if you know how - otherwise, try asking on fedora-extras-list - it will be a useful learning experience). Remember, what a sponsor is looking for is that you know how to make good packages and are aware of the Fedora Extras processes and packaging standards. Doing a detailed, point-by-point review will go a long way towards demonstrating that. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-05 07:00 EST --- thanks for your comment will do full package review -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-31 09:41 EST --- paul, How can this package will come to Fedora-Extras as i cannot see any new Review Request bugzilla ID that you said me to check it? Does that mean i need to wait until i review any package?? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-31 09:51 EST --- paul, sorry i was searching at wrong place. Got new requests for Review Package. So i can directly interfere Review Request for others even if Bugzilla is going to assing it to somebody?? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-31 09:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #13) sorry i was searching at wrong place. Got new requests for Review Package. So i can directly interfere Review Request for others even if Bugzilla is going to assing it to somebody?? Yes, just add your comments as you would in a normal bug report, without changing any of the assignment/status etc. fields. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 05:32 EST --- can any one check whether this package is according to Fedora Extras Guidlines?? Is there anything remaining or its ready to go in Fedora Extras?? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 06:44 EST --- i am already waiting for package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193216 approval and streamer is required to be installed first before using qcwebcam package. I need sponsor for cvs access. What steps shoul i follow? how can i add he blocker bug of FE-NEEDSPONSOR to this review request?? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |NEW
Keywords||Reopened
Resolution|NOTABUG |
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 08:07 EST ---
I had a quick look at this package, and spotted these things:
1. Lose the Provides: streamer-1.1-2 header. RPM will generate an appropriate
Provides: entry itself.
2. Wrap the %description at 80 columns.
3. Try to wrap lomg lines in %install by using backslashes and continuation
lines to make the spec file more readable.
4. The package does not honor %{optflags}. You can fix this by adding the
following command to the end of %prep:
sed -i -e 's/^\(CFLAGS *:= \).*/\1%{optflags}/' Makefile
5. Include some documentation. README and ChangeLog seem appropriate.
6. If you are this package's upstream, bundle a copy of the GPL with the tarball
and include it as %doc in the RPM package. If you're not upstream yourself, ask
whoever is to include a copy of the GPL.
7. Add missing buildreqs ncurses-devel libXt-devel libjpeg-devel libpng-devel
(test-build your packages in mock to find missing buildreqs)
8. Lose the -s from the install commands. Stripping binaries is done
automatically by rpmbuild and if you do it yourself you'll get useless debuginfo
packages.
9. Your package needs to own directory %{_libdir}/streamer/; otherwise, it will
left on the system when the package is removed.
(In reply to comment #3)
i am already waiting for package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193216 approval and
streamer is required to be installed first before using qcwebcam package.
This is why I added bug 193216 to the list of bugs that this one blocks. You
need to get this package into Extras before qcwebcam because that package
depends on this one.
I need sponsor for cvs access. What steps shoul i follow?
See http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors
how can i add he blocker bug of FE-NEEDSPONSOR to this review request??
It appears you have figured that out for yourself. I have reponed this bug
though, which you appear to have closed by mistake.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 08:45 EST --- paul, Did what u suggest changes. Can you check again those URL's and check is there something remaining to be done? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 08:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) paul, Did what u suggest changes. Can you check again those URL's and check is there something remaining to be done? Can you please increment the release number of the package, make an appropriate changelog entry, and post updated URLs whenever you make a change to the package? This helps people reading the review request to identify which comments are associated with which revision of the package. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 09:08 EST --- I updated Release number and added a ChangeLog entry in it. Updated files are at Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1-3.fc5.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-29 11:48 EST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
I updated Release number and added a ChangeLog entry in it. Updated files are
at
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1-3.fc5.src.rpm
Thanks. What appears to have happened now is that upstream (you) have released a
new tarball at version 1.1 that contains the GPL file, which was not the case
with the version 1.1 tarball I last looked at. *Please* don't release new
tarballs with the same version numbers as previous releases - that's a really
bad habit to get into.
You've fixed the unowned directory by adding the following line to %files:
%{_libdir}/streamer/
This tells RPM to include that directory and everything underneath it, which
results in lots of file included twice warnings when the package is built. To
avoid this, do either:
%{_libdir}/streamer/
(which will include everything from that directory downwards), or
%dir %{_libdir}/streamer/
plus all the individual files that you currently list in the %files section. The
%dir tag tells RPM to include the directory but not its contents.
The build process produces quite a lot of compiler warnings. Most of these can
be ignored, but these warrant investigation I think:
console/capture.c: In function 'movie_writer_stop':
console/capture.c:528: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type
console/capture.c:533: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type
console/capture.c: In function 'movie_print_timestamps':
console/capture.c:588: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type
console/capture.c:588: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type
console/capture.c: In function 'movie_grab_put_video':
console/capture.c:624: warning: integer constant is too large for 'long' type
In order to get sponsored, you will need to demonstrate to a potential sponsor
that you are familiar with the Fedora Extras processes and standards. The best
way of doing this is to review other people's packages. Doing this can also be a
useful learning experience for yourself, as you're likely to pick up tips from
other packages and review comments.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-30 00:40 EST --- paul, I didnt get what u mean by Thanks. What appears to have happened now is that upstream (you) have released a new tarball at version 1.1 that contains the GPL file, which was not the case with the version 1.1 tarball I last looked at. *Please* don't release new tarballs with the same version numbers as previous releases - that's a really bad habit to get into. Also i solved rpmbuild file included twice warnings and some other warnings. Other signedness warnings are ok as they are compiler specific. Same warnings are not coming on FC4 and RHEL systems. Do i need to update to new release number. if yes why?? i only solved warnings not added any feature. I updated SPEC file and rebuild RPM. Updated files are at Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/pnemade/Qcwebcam/streamer-1.1-3.fc5.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |urgent -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 193224] Review Request: streamer
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: streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193224 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |fc5 Platform|All |i386 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
