[Bug 225988] Merge Review: libavc1394
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=225988 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jussi.leht...@iki.fi 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
[Bug 225988] Merge Review: libavc1394
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=225988 --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-15 11:45:51 EDT --- Or, you can specify the license as License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+. -- 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 225988] Merge Review: libavc1394
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=225988
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-15 11:43:49
EDT ---
- Source URL should be
Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libavc1394/libavc1394-%{version}.tar.gz
- Patch should be patch0
- Use
BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XX)
- Devel package needs to
Requires: pkgconfig
- You can probably use
%configure --disable-static
to prevent shared library from being built, then you don't have to remove it.
- What is newer libtool needed for? Autoreconf'ing is quite a brutal operation.
**
rpmlint output:
libavc1394.src: W: no-url-tag
libavc1394.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libavc1394.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided libavc1394_0
libavc1394.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided librpm1394_0
libavc1394-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libavc1394-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/libavc1394-0.5.3/test/dvcont.c
libavc1394-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libavc1394-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
- Url should be
URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libavc1394/
- Remove executable permission in %setup phase.
- Other warnings can be ignored.
**
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
NEEDSWORK
- Library is under LGPLv2+, files under test/ are under GPLv2+. Change License:
field to GPLv2+.
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK
- After fixing source URL is OK.
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK
- Use INSTALL="install -p" as argument to make install to preserve time stamps.
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. NEEDSWORK
- Add AUTHORS and TODO to %doc.
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
NEEDSWORK
- Add Requires: pkgconfig to devel.
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
--
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 225988] Merge Review: libavc1394
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=225988 --- Comment #3 from Jarod Wilson 2009-05-18 11:08:46 EDT --- Sadly, --disable-static doesn't work, and dropping the autoreconf results in hard-coded rpaths. Don't have time to chase this further at the moment, but I think I've cleaned up just about everything else now, and will commit to the devel branch shortly... $ rpmlint libavc1394-0.5.3-6.fc12.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint *.rpm libavc1394-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- 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 225988] Merge Review: libavc1394
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=225988 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-18 12:19:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Sadly, --disable-static doesn't work, and dropping the autoreconf results in > hard-coded rpaths. Don't have time to chase this further at the moment, but I > think I've cleaned up just about everything else now, and will commit to the > devel branch shortly... Can't you just sed it away from libtool? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Removing_Rpath -- 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 225988] Merge Review: libavc1394
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=225988 --- Comment #5 from Jarod Wilson 2009-05-18 13:17:07 EDT --- Just took a quick look. Yes, the sed route works. Committed changes to drop the autofoo and libtool BR and the autoreconf'ing. -- 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 225988] Merge Review: libavc1394
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=225988 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-18 14:09:21 EDT --- Okay, can you build it in rawhide so I can do the 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
[Bug 225988] Merge Review: libavc1394
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=225988 --- Comment #7 from Jarod Wilson 2009-05-18 14:51:39 EDT --- Building now, http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1361505 -- 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 225988] Merge Review: libavc1394
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=225988
Jussi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||RAWHIDE
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola 2009-05-18 15:15:15
EDT ---
rpmlint output:
libavc1394-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
- This is OK, since -devel requires main package that includes documentation.
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
The package has been
APPROVED
--
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
