[Bug 225865] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
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=225865 Bug 225865 depends on bug 478651, which changed state. Bug 478651 Summary: Violates package naming guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478651 What|Old Value |New Value Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225865] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
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=225865 Bug 225865 depends on bug 478651, which changed state. Bug 478651 Summary: Violates package naming guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478651 What|Old Value |New Value Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225865] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
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=225865 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225865] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
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=225865 Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(a...@redhat.com) --- Comment #4 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-21 04:32:31 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225865] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
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=225865 --- Comment #3 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-04 11:11:34 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328138) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328138) Sample Patch1 to avoid libtheora version checking. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225865] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
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=225865
--- Comment #1 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-04 11:06:24
EDT ---
MUST Items:
xx - rpmlint is unclean on RPM and SRPM
+ See: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/gstreamer-plugins-base.rpmlint
OK - follows Naming Guidelines
+ Although the upstream tarball is named gst-plugins-base, the project is
named gstreamer, which is the prefix used by Debian also.
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec
xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
+ Please try not to mix spaces and tabs as field separators.
+ You could consider passing --disable-gnome_vfs to %configure, because
a simple non-Mock or non-Koji rpmbuild will fail if gnome-vfs is present
due to PolicyKit-gnome, abiword, brasero, evolution, yelp, etc..
+ According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath we
should avoid rpaths, especially for standard locations like %{_libdir}.
Here is a possible solution:
BuildRequires: libtool
[...]
%build
%configure \
[...]
rm -f ./libtool
cp %{_bindir}/libtool .
[...]
+ Here is how the unused-direct-shlib-dependency can be removed:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency
+ According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
%makeinstall macro should not be used. To also preserve timestamps you
could consider using:
make install INSTALL=%{__install} -p DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ Why not include ChangeLog, NEWS and RELEASE in %doc?
+ According to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation the
REQUIREMENTS file should not be distributed.
+ The most recent entry in the %changelog has a typo. The
%{version}-%{release} should be 0.10.21-3.
+ In the %changelog %files should be replaced by %%files in this entry:
* Wed Jan 18 2006 John (J5) Palmieri jo...@redhat.com - 0.10.2-1
+ The following lines in gst-libs/gst/fft, are responsible for
libgstfft-0.10.so.0.15.0 calling exit:
kiss_fftr_f32.c:81:exit (1);
kiss_fftr_f32.c:138:exit (1);
kiss_fftr_f64.c:81:exit (1);
kiss_fftr_f64.c:138:exit (1);
kiss_fftr_s16.c:81:exit (1);
kiss_fftr_s16.c:138:exit (1);
kiss_fftr_s32.c:81:exit (1);
kiss_fftr_s32.c:138:exit (1);
I do not know what we can do about this, but nowadays rpmlint marks this
as a warning.
OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines
OK - License field meets actual license
xx - upstream license file included in %doc
+ COPYING contains the GPLv2, while the actual license of this package is
LGPLv2+. Please include COPYING.LIB instead.
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources
xx - package does not build successfully
+ Libtheora has a broken version numbering in its *.pc file. See:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/478651 Since the version of libtheora in
Fedora 8 and above is recent enough, we can disable the version check in
the configure script.
OK - ExcludeArch not needed
OK - build dependencies correctly listed
+ Pedantically speaking 'BuildRequires: libtheora = 1.0' is wrong, but
libtheora has a broken NEVRA (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/478651) so
we have to live with it.
OK - locales handled properly
xx - %post and %postun do not invoke ldconfig
+ Since shared libraries are being installed in the dynamic linker's
default path, ldconfig should be invoked in the %post and %postun
scriptlets. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Shared_libraries
OK - package is not relocatable
xx - file and directory ownership
+ The -devel sub-package should have 'Requires: gtk-doc' as it installs
files under /usr/share/gtk-doc.
+ The -devel sub-package should have 'Requires: pkgconfig' as it installs
files under /usr/lib/pkgconfig. Or has the new autogenerated pkgconfig
dependencies feature removed this requirement?
OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
+ The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-)
OK - %clean present
OK - macros used consistently
OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - header files in -devel
OK - no static libraries
xx - -devel has *.pc file and does not require pkgconfig
+ The -devel sub-package should have 'Requires: pkgconfig' as it installs
a *.pc file under /usr/lib/pkgconfig. Or has the new autogenerated
pkgconfig dependencies feature removed this
[Bug 225865] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
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=225865 --- Comment #2 from Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com 2009-01-04 11:10:06 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328137) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328137) Sample Spec file fixes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225865] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
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=225865 Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||478651 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225865] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
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=225865 Bug 225865 depends on bug 478651, which changed state. Bug 478651 Summary: Violates package naming guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478651 What|Old Value |New Value Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225865] Merge Review: gstreamer-plugins-base
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=225865 Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|debarshi@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
