[Bug 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #31 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-07-05 13:08:51 EDT --- rpmlints are usually blockers. If not, the packager should explain/defend why each rpmlint can be disregarded. In this case, the fix should be straightforward. "Some X package gives those errors too" is not a proper way of defending this. Please file bugs to those packages too. They need to be fixed. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #30 from Peter Robinson 2009-07-05 04:24:41 EDT --- > Yes, but you can also run rpmlint against installed packages, which may show > other flaws if there are any. One of these flaws that doesn't show up when you > run rpmlint against the actual rpm files is the unused-direct-shlib-dependency > warning. > > Just simply run >$ rpmlint opal > and you will see And you get those errors for glib2 and others as well. I don't see it as a blocker. > All good. I'll go over the package one last time and let you know if there's > anything else. Thanks -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210
--- Comment #29 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-07-05
02:00:54 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #28)
>
> > * rpmlint on the installed package complains:
> >
> > $ rpmlint opal
> > opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
> > /lib64/libdl.so.2
> >
> > This looks like a pkgconfig issue to me. Could you give a hand?
>
> I don't see any of that. I just got an error on space vs tab which is now
> fixed.
>
> [perobin...@neo SPECS]$ rpmlint opal.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/opal*
> ../SRPMS/opal-3.6.2-2.fc11.src.rpm
> 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
> [perobin...@neo SPECS]$
>
Yes, but you can also run rpmlint against installed packages, which may show
other flaws if there are any. One of these flaws that doesn't show up when you
run rpmlint against the actual rpm files is the unused-direct-shlib-dependency
warning.
Just simply run
$ rpmlint opal
and you will see
> > * %configure --prefix=/usr
> > Please use the %{_prefix} macro
>
> Updated as it seems upstream have finally fixed the build without the need to
> specify the prefix :-)
>
Nice. Btw, %configure should define the prefix for you among other things. You
can run
$ rpm -E %configure
to see what else it defines.
> You can see the update here, I'm not going to push a new build for a few minor
> changes. They'll go into rawhide when I can push 3.6.3
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/opal/devel/opal.spec?view=markup
All good. I'll go over the package one last time and let you know if there's
anything else.
--
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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210
--- Comment #28 from Peter Robinson 2009-07-04 03:42:44
EDT ---
> * There is a new upstream version 3.6.3 now.
I'm aware of it but I'm waiting for the new version of ekiga that will work
with it.
> * rpmlint on the installed package complains:
>
> $ rpmlint opal
> opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
> /lib64/libdl.so.2
>
> This looks like a pkgconfig issue to me. Could you give a hand?
I don't see any of that. I just got an error on space vs tab which is now
fixed.
[perobin...@neo SPECS]$ rpmlint opal.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/opal*
../SRPMS/opal-3.6.2-2.fc11.src.rpm
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[perobin...@neo SPECS]$
> * There is a new guideline now, that says the license file (actually any doc
> file) should be only in one package. Having it on other subpackages is
> considered as file duplication.
Removed the extra copy of the licence in devel
> * %configure --prefix=/usr
> Please use the %{_prefix} macro
Updated as it seems upstream have finally fixed the build without the need to
specify the prefix :-)
You can see the update here, I'm not going to push a new build for a few minor
changes. They'll go into rawhide when I can push 3.6.3
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/opal/devel/opal.spec?view=markup
--
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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210
--- Comment #27 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-07-03
18:11:02 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #26)
>
> * %configure --prefix=/usr
> Please use the %{_prefix} macro
Actually, just the
%configure
macro should be enough
--
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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210
--- Comment #26 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-07-03
14:01:02 EDT ---
Thanks for the report.
As it has been a while since I did the review and the package has been updated
many times since, I made a quick check about the current status:
* There is a new upstream version 3.6.3 now.
* rpmlint on the installed package complains:
$ rpmlint opal
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/lib64/libdl.so.2
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/usr/lib64/libsasl2.so.2
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/usr/lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/usr/lib64/liblber-2.4.so.2
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/usr/lib64/libldap_r-2.4.so.2
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/usr/lib64/libssl.so.8
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/lib64/libz.so.1
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/lib64/libexpat.so.1
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/usr/lib64/libSDL-1.2.so.0
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/lib64/libresolv.so.2
opal.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libopal.so.3.6.2
/lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
This looks like a pkgconfig issue to me. Could you give a hand?
* There is a new guideline now, that says the license file (actually any doc
file) should be only in one package. Having it on other subpackages is
considered as file duplication.
* %configure --prefix=/usr
Please use the %{_prefix} macro
--
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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #25 from Peter Robinson 2009-07-03 09:35:16 EDT --- > Anyhow, I'll ask for the 4th time (comments #6, #10, #17 and #24): AFAICS the only things I didn't directly address directly are as follows: Comment #6 > At least the license file can get into this. >opal-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openh323-devel Fixed in cvs as of Jan 6th > Is openh323 compatible with opal? If yes, you should provide it. No, its not compatible. > * Please package the docs directory. I think it makes more sense to put it in > the -devel package. Fixed in cvs as of Jan 6th > * Shall we package samples and plugins (possibly in different subpackages)? > Note that some plugins have different licenses. Possibly but there's never been a request for them, alot of the samples don't work well so they end up causing more issues than their contribute. Comment #10 > Ok, How about the samples? See comment above. > Btw, currently the "MPEG4 Part 2" plugin is disabled for obvious reasons. > Shall > we include it in a freeworld package at rpmfusion? Is there any benefit in > that? Possibly but out of scope for this. Comment #17 Already addressed in other parts of the bug. Comment #24 Already addressed in other parts of the bug. > Anyhow, I'll ask for the 4th time (comments #6, #10, #17 and #24): AFAICS the only things I didn't directly address directly are as follows: Comment #6 > At least the license file can get into this. >opal-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openh323-devel Fixed in cvs as of Jan 6th > Is openh323 compatible with opal? If yes, you should provide it. No, its not compatible. > * Please package the docs directory. I think it makes more sense to put it in > the -devel package. Fixed in cvs as of Jan 6th > * Shall we package samples and plugins (possibly in different subpackages)? > Note that some plugins have different licenses. Possibly but there's never been a request for them, alot of the samples don't work well so they end up causing more issues than their contribute. Comment #10 > Ok, How about the samples? See comment above. > Btw, currently the "MPEG4 Part 2" plugin is disabled for obvious reasons. > Shall > we include it in a freeworld package at rpmfusion? Is there any benefit in > that? Possibly, but out of scope for this. Comment #17 Already addressed in other parts of the bug. Comment #24 Already addressed in other parts of the bug. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #24 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-07-02 22:36:20 EDT --- Okay, as I said it is not a blocker, it was just a suggestion. Anyhow, I'll ask for the 4th time (comments #6, #10, #17 and #24): > > Ok, How about the samples? > > I'll have a look > -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #23 from Peter Robinson 2009-06-21 12:05:05 EDT --- There's no prebuild binaries in either the opal or opal-devel package, they're used for the windows build so won't ever be used in the build process. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #22 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-06-17 13:47:02 EDT --- It has been a standard procedure to remove the prebuilt binaries (whether they are used or not). I saw and applied this on so many different packages that I forgot that there is no specific guideline for it except this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries Since this guideline does not cover your case, I cannot claim that it is a blocker for the review. But I'd be happy if you reconsider. At the end of the day, it is your responsibility that the prebuilt binaries do not end up in the RPM's. Removing them in %prep may only make your life easier. Working on a "clean" source tree is a good thing, at least IMHO. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #21 from Peter Robinson 2009-06-17 10:17:18 EDT --- I don't think that in prep will be of any use as its still in the tarball unless its only an issue if we ship/use it in the final rpms (which we don't anyway as the binaries are only used by the windows builds). I don't believe any of the precompiled stuff is used by the linux build at all. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210
--- Comment #20 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-05-22
13:10:32 EDT ---
Peter, my comment #17 needs to be addressed. Especially, the removal of
precompiled binaries is important. You can use something like this in %prep
for file in dll so bin lib exe; do
find . -name "*.$file" -exec rm -f {} \; ;
done
--
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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #19 from Peter Robinson 2009-05-22 06:41:59 EDT --- I think most of the issues are now fixed. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #18 from Peter Robinson 2009-04-24 03:52:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > Peter, > It's been more than 4 months since the initial review and you made 9 builds > since. Any chance you will have a look at the issues below this season? Sorry, I've been very busy and haven't had a chance to get back to this. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #17 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-04-23 21:05:23 EDT --- Peter, It's been more than 4 months since the initial review and you made 9 builds since. Any chance you will have a look at the issues below this season? (In reply to comment #9) > > > * Remove the precompiled binaries during prep. So far I found: > >./configure.exe > >./samples/opalgw/messages.bin > >./plugins/LID/TigerJet/TjIpSys.dll > >./plugins/LID/CM_HID/CM_HID.dll > >./plugins/LID/VPB/libvpb.lib > >./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.dll > >./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.so > >./src/win32/vpbapi.lib: current ar archive > > Actually the ffmpeg stuff is patent encumbered. You should take that stuff > > off > > and provide a "clean" tarball for the SRPM. > > I'll speak to upstream to get this cleaned up. > (In reply to comment #11) > > Ok, How about the samples? > > I'll have a look > -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #16 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-04-21 14:02:32 EDT --- I've made a modified tarball that removes the ilbc bits, and committed it for F-11 and rawhide. If you push any updates for F-9 or F-10, you need to do the same thing. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #15 from Peter Robinson 2009-03-24 03:19:03 EDT --- The upstream develops have indicated that they would accept a patch for something like 'make dist' producing a second tarball called opal-oss or something that has the ilbc code and the random binaries that are needed for the windows build removed. They don't have the time to do it themselves, and I don't really know how to do something like that with autoconf/automake. Details can be found on the SF tracker below. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=989748&aid=2555959&group_id=204472 -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #14 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-12 11:30:18 EDT --- Any word on this issue? -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #13 from Peter Robinson 2009-02-01 16:12:09 EDT --- > > We already removed iLBC support from Asterisk - can we re-add this support > > back? > > Sorry for the delay. Red Hat Legal got this one wrong (it happens to everyone > sometimes). The iLBC codec needs to be removed from the opal tarball. > > Reblocking FE-Legal. I'm reported this upstream on the OPAL bug tracker. I've also had a direct email conversation with the ekiga maintainer and he agrees so is going to discuss this with the OPAL developers so hopefully will have an upstream fix for the ilbc issue shortly. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 --- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-01-19 15:54:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Sorry to bother you again, but, please, provide more explanations - it still > not clear for some people, whether iLBC legal or not. > > Opal ships this implementation of RFC3951 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3951 > ), which distributes under very strange license: > > http://www.ilbcfreeware.org/documentation/gips_iLBClicense.pdf > > See also this thread: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/90195 > > We already removed iLBC support from Asterisk - can we re-add this support > back? Sorry for the delay. Red Hat Legal got this one wrong (it happens to everyone sometimes). The iLBC codec needs to be removed from the opal tarball. Reblocking FE-Legal. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #11 from Peter Robinson 2008-12-16 14:15:19 EDT --- > Ok, How about the samples? I'll have a look > Btw, currently the "MPEG4 Part 2" plugin is disabled for obvious reasons. > Shall > we include it in a freeworld package at rpmfusion? Is there any benefit in > that? I think it requires x264 so its a possibility, it provides a video codec. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #10 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-16 14:08:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > > * Shall we package samples and plugins (possibly in different subpackages)? > > Note that some plugins have different licenses. > > The library is little use with out plugins so I don't see the point in > splitting it up. Ok, How about the samples? Btw, currently the "MPEG4 Part 2" plugin is disabled for obvious reasons. Shall we include it in a freeworld package at rpmfusion? Is there any benefit in that? -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210
--- Comment #9 from Peter Robinson 2008-12-16 13:51:54
EDT ---
> * rpmlint complains:
>opal.src:27: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes openh323-devel
> Will this cause any problem in the future? I would say, let's put a version
> number just to be safe
>opal-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> At least the license file can get into this.
>opal-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openh323-devel
> Is openh323 compatible with opal? If yes, you should provide it.
I'll remove it as its long obsolete.
> * Remove the precompiled binaries during prep. So far I found:
>./configure.exe
>./samples/opalgw/messages.bin
>./plugins/LID/TigerJet/TjIpSys.dll
>./plugins/LID/CM_HID/CM_HID.dll
>./plugins/LID/VPB/libvpb.lib
>./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.dll
>./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.so
>./src/win32/vpbapi.lib: current ar archive
> Actually the ffmpeg stuff is patent encumbered. You should take that stuff off
> and provide a "clean" tarball for the SRPM.
I'll speak to upstream to get this cleaned up.
> * Please package the docs directory. I think it makes more sense to put it in
> the -devel package.
OK
> * Shall we package samples and plugins (possibly in different subpackages)?
> Note that some plugins have different licenses.
The library is little use with out plugins so I don't see the point in
splitting it up.
> * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)
>
> * Please make use of the %{name} macro.
>
> * The devel package must require openssl-devel (see iax2/remote.h)
Will fix
> * Weird provides:
>$ rpm -qv --provides opal
>()(64bit) <--- This one
>g726()(64bit
>...
See RHBZ 473084
> * Most libraries install into the directory %{_libdir}/%{name} , but not
> %{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version}. Any reason you picked the latter way?
As per upstream.
> * Latest version is not packaged. opal-3.4.3 is available
Yes, but the current ekiga release depends on 3.4.2. When the new version of
ekiga comes out it will be upgraded too.
> * Fedora specific flag -O2 is overriden at certain instances by -Os. That
> needs
> fixed.
I'll add it to my upstream list.
--
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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #8 from Peter Robinson 2008-12-16 13:37:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > I'm confused about this whole obsoletes/provides issue > > opal-devel obsoletes openh323-devel > > but opal does not obsolete openh323 > > I don't get it. An explanation in the SPEC file as a comment would be useful > if > you believe this is the right way. there's no need for them any more as the docs only require them to be kept for 2 Fedora releases, openh323 was replaced back in Fedora 6 or 7. I thought I'd already dropped them, apparently missed the -devel. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #7 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-16 13:22:09 EDT --- I'm confused about this whole obsoletes/provides issue opal-devel obsoletes openh323-devel but opal does not obsolete openh323 I don't get it. An explanation in the SPEC file as a comment would be useful if you believe this is the right way. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210
--- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-16
13:18:51 EDT ---
Here's the full review:
* rpmlint complains:
opal.src:27: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes openh323-devel
Will this cause any problem in the future? I would say, let's put a version
number just to be safe
opal-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
At least the license file can get into this.
opal-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openh323-devel
Is openh323 compatible with opal? If yes, you should provide it.
* Remove the precompiled binaries during prep. So far I found:
./configure.exe
./samples/opalgw/messages.bin
./plugins/LID/TigerJet/TjIpSys.dll
./plugins/LID/CM_HID/CM_HID.dll
./plugins/LID/VPB/libvpb.lib
./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.dll
./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.so
./src/win32/vpbapi.lib: current ar archive
Actually the ffmpeg stuff is patent encumbered. You should take that stuff off
and provide a "clean" tarball for the SRPM.
* Please package the docs directory. I think it makes more sense to put it in
the -devel package.
* Shall we package samples and plugins (possibly in different subpackages)?
Note that some plugins have different licenses.
* We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)
* Please make use of the %{name} macro.
* The devel package must require openssl-devel (see iax2/remote.h)
* Weird provides:
$ rpm -qv --provides opal
()(64bit) <--- This one
g726()(64bit
...
* Most libraries install into the directory %{_libdir}/%{name} , but not
%{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version}. Any reason you picked the latter way?
* Latest version is not packaged. opal-3.4.3 is available
* Fedora specific flag -O2 is overriden at certain instances by -Os. That needs
fixed.
--
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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||orcanba...@yahoo.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|orcanba...@yahoo.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-16 12:51:58 EDT --- I'm doing the review of this package. Could you review my hydrogen-drumkits? (Bug 468765) -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 Peter Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-03 12:18:28 EDT --- Sorry to bother you again, but, please, provide more explanations - it still not clear for some people, whether iLBC legal or not. Opal ships this implementation of RFC3951 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3951 ), which distributes under very strange license: http://www.ilbcfreeware.org/documentation/gips_iLBClicense.pdf See also this thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/90195 We already removed iLBC support from Asterisk - can we re-add this support back? -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 Tom "spot" Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Blocks|182235 | --- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-03 11:07:22 EDT --- RH Legal is not concerned about the opal implementation of the iLBC codec. Lifting FE-Legal. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
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=226210 Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Blocks||182235 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-29 14:10:49 EDT --- Please note, that this library is shipped with iLBC codec, which legal status is questionable. -- 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: opal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226210 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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 226210] Merge Review: opal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: opal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226210 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-18 08:58 EST --- Created an attachment (id=312131) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=312131&action=view) initial spec file cleanup Here's an initial .spec cleanup based on the packaging guidelines and rpmlint. rpmlint is still complaining about version obsoletes but I don't think that's an issue, although opal has obsoleted openh323 for quite a while so it might be time to remove that. [EMAIL PROTECTED] devel]$ rpmlint opal.spec opal.spec:14: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes openh323 opal.spec:26: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes openh323-devel 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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, 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 226210] Merge Review: opal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: opal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226210 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
