http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1030
--- Comment #9 from [email protected] 2009-12-31 14:51:41 --- (In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #1) > > (In reply to comment #0) > > > > [FWIW: I have a spec for xbmc of my own, but do not indent to publish it for > > several, different reasons. The comments below are based on what I am > > observing > > without having looked into your package.] > > Any reason why you hadn't submitted a package review for XBMC yourself then? As I said, there "several different reasons": 1) I am not sure, I be will using xbmc in longer terms. All I did was to recently pick up Rolf F.'s spec and to try bringing into shape to get an impression about xbmc, myself. 2) Christmas holidays interferred (and still interfer) - I haven't had any chance to submit these patches anywhere, yet. > > > Note that XBMC is a big package, the SRPM is 135 MB (although the binary > > > is > > > only 32 MB). > > Much of the size stems from upstream including windows and osx binaries. > > I'd recommend to prune them from their tarball. > > Yes, I had noticed that, although I believe that Fedora prefers pristine > tarballs where possible. Of course if any .dlls or binaries are in there, > they > need to be stripped out in any case since they may not be distributable, so we > may as well remove anything that isn't strictly necessary. Well, what upstream calls "packaging", leaves a lot of room for improvement ;) > > > 1. The first issue (as revealed in the rpmlint log, below) is that xbmc > > > installs no-arch independent code in /usr/share/xbmc/. We probably need > > > > s/need/MUST/ > > No go without having this fixed. > > Right, the "probably" was in reference to the fact that it would be good to > enlist upstream's advice in fixing this properly, versus only applying patches > which at least for me is more risky since I don't know the xbmc codebase that > well, not to whether it was necessary for the package review. Neither do I. It's just that I have been wading though upstream's mess and try to address obvious issues. > > There are other majors issues I am aware about: > > > > * the spyce stuff is outdated and breaks with python-2.6 (Earlier versions > > of > > my spec failed to build in mock because of this - I have a patch, I grabbed > > somewhere on the net.) IIRC, this issue pops up when building with debug-infos enabled and with libdir fixed. Some of rpm's python-scripts will choke on the scripts, because these are using keywords which are reserved in python-2.6. > > * parts of xbmc don't acknowledge RPM_OPT_FLAGS > > > > * Lack of DESTDIR support. > > OK, so it seems that your patches fix the DESTDIR issue at least. Yes, this was a fallout from addressing the bindir/libdir issue. -- Configure bugmail: http://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.
