[Bug 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-14 14:58 EST --- This package appears to have been successfully imported and built. If there are no further issues with this review, please close the review in accordance with the Fedora Package Contributor Guide: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#head-b43ecb6816897576064ffea1121d8d08de01e350 -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-03 02:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #12) [...] === Issues === 1. Package is LGPL licensed, not GPL FIXED. 2. Please use wget -N or similar to download the source tarball so that the source timestamp is preserved. FIXED. New source tarball downloaded. 3. /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0 is unowned an should be owned by libopenraw-devel (you can use %dir to do this) FIXED. 4. Shouldn't package libopenraw-gnome-devel also require libopenraw-devel? FIXED. It should, so I have added it to the list of requirements. New versions are available at: http://libopenraw.freedesktop.org/download/libopenraw-0.0.2.tar.gz -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-03 03:08 EST --- [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPL in package spec, but LGPL in package [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package: eae40ecaa92f69d99b27ae3bad8aa8ae MD5SUM upstream package: eae40ecaa92f69d99b27ae3bad8aa8ae [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. *** APPROVED *** -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-03 03:22 EST --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libopenraw Short Description: decode camera RAW files Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branches: FC-6 InitialCC: -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-02 02:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #6) You now have gui dependencies. Do you intend to break the package into something like: libopenraw libopenraw-gnome libopenraw-devel or do you think that the majority of users of the package will want all the components even at the expense of pulling in gui components and all of their dependencies? That is a good idea! I do not know of anything atm that could make use of libopenraw without the GNOME component, but I assume that it might be useful at some point (perhaps a ImageMagick-style application). Question: Should separate -devel packages be created for libopenraw and libopenraw-gnome, or is it enough to add a requirement for all components to the devel 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-02 02:42 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #6) Question: Should separate -devel packages be created for libopenraw and libopenraw-gnome, or is it enough to add a requirement for all components to the devel package? It's up to you. I'd prefer seeing separate *-devel's and runtime packages for each of them. -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-02 07:44 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) I don't want to be picky, but: checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes Shouldn't this imply: BuildRequires: pkgconfig = 0.9.0 ?? Perhaps you might want to version the Requires: pkgconfig for -devel as well, dunno. *shrug* Note: This isn't a package specific requirement, but seems to be introduced by autoconf. The requirement or the versioning _may_ therefore be obsolete or quietly ignorable. pkgconfig interestingly _is not_ in the exception list for BRs: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FullExceptionList Re the versioning: The Fedora packaging guidelines (http://fedoraproject.org/ wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-0711805dd733fe3b31741e9d5236d72941a79d94) say: First, if the lowest possible requirement is so old that nobody has a version older than that installed on any target distribution release, there's no need to include the version in the dependency at all. This may very much be the case for this pkgconfig version. :) Moritz, off to build his own gthumb with this lib, thanks for 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-02 14:11 EST --- New version of spec file and source RPM available at ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/libopenraw. There is now a separate -gnome package, so it should now be possible to use libopenraw on X/GTK-less machines. -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-02 17:52 EST ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: FC-6 / i386
[x] Rpmlint output:
W: libopenraw-devel no-documentation
W: libopenraw-gnome no-documentation
W: libopenraw-gnome-devel no-documentation
These are all ok.
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPL in package spec, but LGPL in package
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: eae40ecaa92f69d99b27ae3bad8aa8ae
MD5SUM upstream package: eae40ecaa92f69d99b27ae3bad8aa8ae
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
Arches excluded:
Why:
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[!] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: FC-6 / i386
[-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== Issues ===
1. Package is LGPL licensed, not GPL
2. Please use wget -N or similar to download the source tarball so that the
source timestamp is preserved.
3. /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0 is unowned an should be owned by libopenraw-devel
(you can use %dir to do this)
4. Shouldn't package libopenraw-gnome-devel also require libopenraw-devel?
=== Final Notes ===
1.
--
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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-01 02:20 EST --- Sorry for the obvious mistakes; they should all be fixed now. New versions at ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/libopenraw -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-01 14:38 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) Sorry for the obvious mistakes; they should all be fixed now. No need to apologize... that's what the peer reviews are for... more eyes, less errors. Now that gtk2-devel is in the BR, new files (and dependencies) are generated: rpm -qpl libopenraw-0.0.2-3.fc6.i386.rpm /usr/lib/libopenraw.so.1 /usr/lib/libopenraw.so.1.0.0 /usr/lib/libopenrawgnome.so.1 -- NEW FILE /usr/lib/libopenrawgnome.so.1.0.0 -- NEW FILE /usr/share/doc/libopenraw-0.0.2 /usr/share/doc/libopenraw-0.0.2/AUTHORS /usr/share/doc/libopenraw-0.0.2/COPYING /usr/share/doc/libopenraw-0.0.2/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/libopenraw-0.0.2/NEWS /usr/share/doc/libopenraw-0.0.2/README /usr/share/doc/libopenraw-0.0.2/TODO rpm -qpl libopenraw-devel-0.0.2-3.fc6.i386.rpm /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0 /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0/libopenraw /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0/libopenraw-gnome /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0/libopenraw-gnome/gdkpixbuf.h -- NEW FILE /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0/libopenraw/consts.h /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0/libopenraw/debug.h /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0/libopenraw/io.h /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0/libopenraw/libopenraw.h /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0/libopenraw/thumbnails.h /usr/include/libopenraw-1.0/libopenraw/types.h /usr/lib/libopenraw.so /usr/lib/libopenrawgnome.so -- NEW FILE /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libopenraw-1.0.pc /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libopenraw-gnome-1.0.pc -- NEW FILE You now have gui dependencies. Do you intend to break the package into something like: libopenraw libopenraw-gnome libopenraw-devel or do you think that the majority of users of the package will want all the components even at the expense of pulling in gui components and all of their dependencies? -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-30 02:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) Building on a system which doesn't have glib2-devel installed: ... checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes checking for LIBGLIB... configure: WARNING: glib-2.0 missing, ignore GdkPixbuf support. Are you intentionally building without glib2/gnome support? If yes, you probably want --disable-gnome: ./configure --help .. --disable-gnome .. If no, you probably want BuildRequires: glib2-devel New BuildRequires added; updated spec file and source rpm at ftp://open-gnss.org/pub/fedora/libopenraw -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-30 19:56 EST --- I'll provide a review soon, but noticed this in the build: Options: Gnome support: no You might be missing some BRs, perhaps libgnome-devel -- 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 238373] Review Request: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files.
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: libopenraw - decode camera RAW files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238373 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-29 23:49 EST --- Building on a system which doesn't have glib2-devel installed: ... checking pkg-config is at least version 0.9.0... yes checking for LIBGLIB... configure: WARNING: glib-2.0 missing, ignore GdkPixbuf support. Are you intentionally building without glib2/gnome support? If yes, you probably want --disable-gnome: ./configure --help .. --disable-gnome .. If no, you probably want BuildRequires: glib2-devel -- 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
