[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-11-06 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Nicolas Chauvet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+

--- Comment #29 from Nicolas Chauvet  ---
(testing using fedora-review flag)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-11-06 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #28 from Nicolas Chauvet  ---
Please note that we cannot create el7 branches yet.
Please create a pkgdb request, thoses will be proceeded once possible.

Thx

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-11-06 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Nicolas Chauvet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|33  |


Referenced Bugs:

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33
[Bug 33] Tracker: Packages awaitting CVS Administration
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-11-04 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Stuart Gathman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||33

--- Comment #27 from Stuart Gathman  ---
Package CVS request
==
Package Name: mp3fs
Short Description: FUSE filesystem to transcode FLAC to MP3 on the fly
Owners: sdgathman
Branches: master, fc25, fc24, fc23, el7, el6
InitialCC: 
--
License tag: free

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-27 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #26 from leigh scott  ---
Just a comment, the summary is lame imo

"A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system"

where is the 3?

"A dynamic MP3 encoding fuse file-system"



TBH I prefer the debian summary

"FUSE filesystem for transcoding FLAC to MP3 on the fly"

https://packages.debian.org/jessie/utils/mp3fs

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-26 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #25 from Stuart Gathman  ---
Waiting for Internal Error on fas.rpmfusion.org to get fixed so I can create an
account.  In the mean time, updated SPEC:


SPEC: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/mp3fs.spec
SRPM: https://gathman.org/linux/f23/src/mp3fs-0.91-3.fc23.src.rpm

$ rpmlint mp3fs-0*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-26 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #24 from leigh scott  ---
Can you explain this please, Provides: mp3encoder = 0.91
also remove the space from (should be Summary:).

Summary : A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-26 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

leigh scott  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||3, 4
   Assignee|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |leigh123li...@gmail.com
   |mfusion.org |

--- Comment #23 from leigh scott  ---
Package Approved

Please fix the build flags when you import the package, change

%{make_build} LDFLAGS=-lm

to

%{make_build} LDFLAGS="$RPM_LD_FLAGS -lm" V=1


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or
 later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 20 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/leigh/2444-mp3fs/licensecheck.txt

The MIT detection is invailid as the file isn't used

MIT/X11 (BSD like)
--
mp3fs-0.91/config/install-sh

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license 

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-26 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #22 from Stuart Gathman  ---
Ping?

All issues addressed - awaiting approval or more feedback.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-19 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #21 from Stuart Gathman  ---
Adding the documentation license to License:

License: GPLv3+ and FDL

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-19 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #20 from Stuart Gathman  ---
Updated in place:

SPEC: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/mp3fs.spec
SRPM: https://gathman.org/linux/f23/src/mp3fs-0.91-2.fc23.src.rpm

The 'fuse' package is not picked up by auto-depend, because it just has the
cli, not any libraries.  In theory, an alternate userland fuse mount package
could appear (or systemd sucks fuse mounting into its kitchen sink), but as of
now, mp3fs (and other fuse packages) are useless without the fuse cli.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-18 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #19 from leigh scott  ---
(In reply to Stuart Gathman from comment #18)
> Update to 0.91 and update github URL:
> 
> SPEC: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/mp3fs.spec
> SRPM: https://gathman.org/linux/f23/src/mp3fs-0.91-2.fc23.src.rpm
> 
> $ rpmlint mp3fs-0.91-2* ~/rpm/SPECS/mp3fs.spec
> 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

1: Use the license macro

%license COPYING COPYING.DOC

2: change the build make command from

make LDFLAGS=-lm

to

%{make_build} LDFLAGS=-lm

3: Is this really needed

Requires: fuse

surely autorequires picks this up.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-18 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #18 from Stuart Gathman  ---
Update to 0.91 and update github URL:

SPEC: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/mp3fs.spec
SRPM: https://gathman.org/linux/f23/src/mp3fs-0.91-2.fc23.src.rpm

$ rpmlint mp3fs-0.91-2* ~/rpm/SPECS/mp3fs.spec
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-18 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Sérgio Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ser...@serjux.com

--- Comment #17 from Sérgio Basto  ---
(In reply to Stuart Gathman from comment #11)
> I submitted this package quite some time ago.  Did I miss something?  Was
> there a next step I was supposed to take?  I don't believe I have priv to
> build on the official build system.  If it is just a matter of waiting for
> people to get a round TUIT, I understand.  I just want to make sure I'm not
> missing something in the procedure.  I presume it would help if I submitted
> some packages to Fedora first?

Please submit it again and preferably updated last release is 0.91 [1] , here I
just see package review for 0.32 . 

Thanks.

[1] https://github.com/khenriks/mp3fs/releases

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-17 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

leigh scott  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||leigh123li...@gmail.com
 Blocks|30  |

--- Comment #16 from leigh scott  ---
(In reply to Stuart Gathman from comment #15)
> I now have several packages in production on Fedora, and will address the
> issues mentioned above.

Yes


https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/sdgathman/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2016-10-17 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Stuart Gathman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
 Resolution|WONTFIX |---

--- Comment #15 from Stuart Gathman  ---
I now have several packages in production on Fedora, and will address the
issues mentioned above.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2015-01-14 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Blocks||2
 Resolution||WONTFIX

--- Comment #14 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2015-01-14 23:03:18 CET ---
Closing due to inactivity, please reopen if you're interested in pursuing this
review request.

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2014-01-30 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||musur...@gmail.com

--- Comment #13 from Andrea Musuruane musur...@gmail.com 2014-01-30 11:27:17 
CET ---
(In reply to comment #11)
 I submitted this package quite some time ago.  Did I miss something?  Was 
 there
 a next step I was supposed to take?  I don't believe I have priv to build on
 the official build system.  If it is just a matter of waiting for people to 
 get
 a round TUIT, I understand.  I just want to make sure I'm not missing 
 something
 in the procedure.  I presume it would help if I submitted some packages to
 Fedora first?

I suggest you to submit packages in Fedora and start unofficial reviews of
other packages there. This will help you to get sponsored faster. 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

Fedora sponsored packagers are automatically RPM Fusion sponsored packagers.

Then, when you are sponsored, try to swap this review with another one - this
usually works :)

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2014-01-29 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #11 from Stuart Gathman stu...@gathman.org 2014-01-29 23:14:28 
CET ---
I submitted this package quite some time ago.  Did I miss something?  Was there
a next step I was supposed to take?  I don't believe I have priv to build on
the official build system.  If it is just a matter of waiting for people to get
a round TUIT, I understand.  I just want to make sure I'm not missing something
in the procedure.  I presume it would help if I submitted some packages to
Fedora first?

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2014-01-29 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com

--- Comment #12 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com 2014-01-30 04:39:54 CET ---
It may just be lack of time. I know I don't have very much right now. Also, we
don't have a very formal sponsorship process on RPM Fusion (not that it's that
formal on Fedora). The best way to get your package reviewed is to do a review
swap, but in your case you can't do that yet...

It's not required to submit a Review Request to Fedora first and see if it gets
blocked if you can show a hard dependency on a package that is only provided by
RPM Fusion, ffmpeg being a common one.

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2014-01-10 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #8 from Bill McGonigle 
bill-bugzilla.rpmfusion@bfccomputing.com 2014-01-10 13:30:31 CET ---
Thank you for the excellent advice, Martin!

SPEC: https://www.bfccomputing.com/downloads/fedora/mp3fs/fuse-mp3fs.spec
SRPM:
https://www.bfccomputing.com/downloads/fedora/mp3fs/fuse-mp3fs-0.32-2.fc19.src.rpm

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2014-01-10 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #9 from Bill McGonigle 
bill-bugzilla.rpmfusion@bfccomputing.com 2014-01-10 13:43:34 CET ---
(In reply to comment #7)
 and post the output from rpmlint again.

SPECS]$ rpmlint fuse-mp3fs.spec ../SRPMS/fuse-mp3fs-0.32-2.fc19.src.rpm 
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2014-01-10 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com

--- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com 2014-01-10 14:16:00 
CET ---
Just a drive-by comment: There are specific GL on github source URL:s which are
not used here (note also the implications for Release:)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2014-01-09 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #6 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de 2014-01-09 10:19:43 CET ---
please correct your spec file.

1. please put %global definitions into top of the spec file.

2. %clean tag no logner needed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean

3. %buildroot tag no logner needed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag

4. %defattr is no longer needed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2014-01-09 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #7 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de 2014-01-09 11:09:01 CET ---
please correct the version numbering in %changelog section
and post the output from rpmlint again.


rpmlint fuse-mp3fs-0.32.53-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
fuse-mp3fs.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.32-2 ['0.32.53-2.fc20',
'0.32.53-2']
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2014-01-08 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Bill McGonigle bill-bugzilla.rpmfusion@bfccomputing.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bill-bugzilla.rpmfusion.org
   ||@bfccomputing.com

--- Comment #5 from Bill McGonigle 
bill-bugzilla.rpmfusion@bfccomputing.com 2014-01-09 07:43:33 CET ---
Greetings from 2014!

SPEC: https://www.bfccomputing.com/downloads/fedora/fuse-mp3fs/fuse-mp3fs.spec
SRPM:
https://www.bfccomputing.com/downloads/fedora/fuse-mp3fs/fuse-mp3fs-0.32.53-2.fc19.src.rpm

This wouldn't build for me on f19.  Upstream seems to have addressed this by
implementing the fixes in C++ in the source.  I've updated the spec and source
accordingly, and got a git commit archive from github to build inside the spec
(there has been no numbered release of these fixes).  I updated the name to
fuse-mp3fs to match the current pattern with fuse filesystems in the fedora and
rpmfusion repos.

I'm currently testing this (listening to a Steve Miller FLAC via mp3fs over nfs
at the moment) and it's working for me.  I hit one snag where it would segfault
in libmp3lame if the destination mountpoint was on a zfs volume (I don't even
know if zfs or fuse support this).  I moved it to an ext4 filesystem and it's
working fine.  I don't any way for that to be a build issue, but just for the
sake of future searchers: 

[861607.664978] traps: mp3fs[24682] general protection ip:38c708040c
sp:2b54514b08e8 error:0
[861607.671871] mp3fs[24683]: segfault at 2b496ee37c08 ip 0038cf80ca18 sp
2b54516cf800 error 6
[861607.727759]  in libc-2.17.so[38c700+1b6000]
[861607.785165]  in libmp3lame.so.0.0.0[38cf80+47000]

Anyway, I was surprised this wasn't already in rpmfusion, so what else needs to
be done?

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2012-10-12 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #4 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de 2012-10-12 13:51:27 CEST ---
Looks much better; the only I would note is adding a blank line between
changelog entries. Obviously not a breaking issue and doesn't need a rebuild or
a new revision. Just for future changes, the space helps legibility and
readability of the changelog file.

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2012-10-11 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

--- Comment #2 from Stuart Gathman stu...@gathman.org 2012-10-11 15:14:36 
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
 a few notes:
 
 BuildRoot tag isn't required in the spec file
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
 same with clean
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
 also rm -rf %{buildroot} isn't necessary in the install section

Made changes in mp3fs.spec

Built for f17

http://spidey2.bmsi.com/linux/fc17/mp3fs-0.32-1.fc17.src.rpm

Question:

What is the best way to hand RHEL5 and RHEL6?  Both of these require the
BuildRoot and %clean.  Should I use %if ?  Or maintain two separate spec files?

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2012-10-11 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||xav...@bachelot.org

--- Comment #3 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org 2012-10-11 15:21:52 
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
 What is the best way to hand RHEL5 and RHEL6?  Both of these require the
 BuildRoot and %clean.  Should I use %if ?  Or maintain two separate spec 
 files?

Just keep them in the spec, they will be ignored when not needed. Also, iirc,
there is no difference between current fedora and rhel6 guidelines, only rhel5
needs special attention.

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


[Bug 2444] Review request: mp3fs - A dynamic MP encoding fuse file-system

2012-10-06 Thread RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2444

MartinKG mgans...@alice.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mgans...@alice.de

--- Comment #1 from MartinKG mgans...@alice.de 2012-10-06 18:40:21 CEST ---
a few notes:

BuildRoot tag isn't required in the spec file
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
same with clean
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean
also rm -rf %{buildroot} isn't necessary in the install section

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