https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1816
Ismael Olea <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #8 from Ismael Olea <[email protected]> 2012-01-17 10:29:32 CET --- (In reply to comment #7) > The problem is that there is no suitable default presentation_url because the > media files are usually under a user's home dir. Therefore this parameter must > be edited manually. Other suggestions are appreciated :-) > > You can test minidlna using a DLNA DMP such as XMBC. Upnp-inspector is also > available for Fedora to analyze the DLNA stack components. Well, I'm very new to upnp/dlna and still not sure how it works (or if my LAN is mangling upnp announces) Looking through upnp-inspector I found the default URI is the same as I am specting, so now I think my comment is obvious. > I still have problems with systemd but I still have to investigate them > better. > I just noticed that if I comment the User and the Group lines in > minidlna.service it always work. Maybe you should ask advice to the systemd gurus. > Anyway here it is an updated package. final checklist: +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [=] rpmlint output: shown in comment: none [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: GPLv2 [+] license field matches the actual license: spec credits GPLv2 [+] license file is included in %doc: COPYING [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16 x86 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [+] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [=] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [?] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64 [?] package functions as described: service is up and running, didn't test funcionality [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [+] file dependencies versus package dependencies [+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts *** APPROVED *** -- 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.
