[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review- Last Closed||2013-12-19 07:53:44 --- Comment #24 from Igor Gnatenko i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- It's very bad review and for sure fpc ticket #362. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #25 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- While the resolution closed/wontfix certainly is OK, the process is not. This was assigned to Simone (negativo17...), and IMHO the proper action would have been to put a comment in the bug that it should be closed due to the FPC decision. Just grabbing a ticket this way is indeed odd. Changing the review+ to review- without a try to communicate first is even more strange. More important: this package is now part of a a more suitable repository to quote FPC. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #22 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #21) In the best of all worlds I think we should co-maintain this package. You know the skype stuff, I know lpf (which is as yet far from stable...). For me it's ok, I can send you a newer skype.spec wherever there is the need. way could be that you submitted this package to rpmfusion, I review it (which basically already is done) and we then co-maintain it once it's in the repo. What do you think? I agree, but would like to skip the time-consuming review for both (lpf-skype and lpf-spotify); so I will just post references to the official review in bugzilla.redhat.com so we/you can approve them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #23 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Sounds good. Using that recipe you could formally review rpmfusion 3033, and if you make a similar request for lpf-skype I can formally review that. Those reviews should just be a reference to the already existing reviews in redhat bz, it should no take any time IMHO. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #21 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- The FPC have discussed the issue. The ticket (#362) is still missing a +1 vote, but I think it a safe bet to say it will be approved. This means that lpf-skype should go to rpmfusion. In the best of all worlds I think we should co-maintain this package. You know the skype stuff, I know lpf (which is as yet far from stable...). One way could be that you submitted this package to rpmfusion, I review it (which basically already is done) and we then co-maintain it once it's in the repo. What do you think? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714
--- Comment #17 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
Package APPROVED wrt lpf-skype.spec file.
Now to the bundled skype.spec file. I used to mantain the same for a few years;
would you like to take a look at:
http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/skype.spec
Apart from stylistical differences in the SPEC file and description/summaries
the things I notice most are the following:
- Fedora 20+ needs a wrapper because it needs PULSE_LATENCY_MSEC=30; setting it
in a profile under /etc/profile.d does not work.
- Requires webkitgtk%{_isa}; is not pulled automatically in by dependencies and
it's needed for the first html based welcome screen, otherwise if it's not
already configured, there's no way to configure it for the first time.
- ExclusiveArch should be i686 (RPMFusion style) or %{ix86}; x86_64 is not
supported.
- You are missing a prelink configuration file. If you run it for a day, after
prelink has run on any EPEL or Fedora system, the program gets corrupted and
you need to reinstall the rpm. Prelink it's disabled in Fedora 21+, (iirc).
- I avoid stripping by using %define __spec_install_post
/usr/lib/rpm/brp-compress at the top of the spec file, don't know what the
impact is compared to your solution.
I've also added you in CC to my (obsolete, probably) Skype review in RPMFusion;
just for reference.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2978
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #18 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Hm... Since you actually have a working and tested spec file: would it be problem if we just used it verbatim in this package? It actually seems to be in a much better shape than current version, which havn't really been tested that well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #19 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- Sure, no worries, just add it if you wish. Actually from Apache logs I see it's quite succesful with people on all Fedora releases and running RHEL/CentOS 6: http://negativo17.org/skype-and-skype-pidgin-plugin/ I would say we could also close for good RPMFusion's review :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #20 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- OK, done. New links: spec: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-skype/4/lpf-skype.spec srpm: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-skype/4/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-4.fc20.src.rpm It's kind of odd, using your spec somehow reverses our roles when I glance through it. Made a few really small changes: * Wed Nov 6 2013 Alec Leamas lea...@nowhere.net - 4.2.0.11-7 - Importing spec into lpf-skype package - Fix update-mime-database snippets according to known snippets. - Add -a cp flags, preserve modification times. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #12 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- OK, figured out. It happens only in f19 mock: + /usr/share/lpf/scripts/lpf-setup-pkg /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 /builddir/build/SOURCES/skype.spec.in + desktop-file-validate /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/applications/lpf-skype.desktop /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/applications/lpf-skype.desktop: file does not exist RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.fKPQrS (%install) Rebuilding lpf and lfp-skype in rawhide now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #13 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- ..because as it was suggested in the lpf-spotify-client review I was still using the latest lpf package in the review which is quite old (lpf-0-3.46ae0c3). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714
--- Comment #14 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/lpf/packages/skype/state
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
= MUST items =
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.
[-]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /var/lib/lpf/packages, /usr/share/lpf,
/var/lib/lpf, /usr/share/lpf/packages
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /var/lib/lpf,
/var/lib/lpf/packages, /usr/share/lpf, /usr/share/lpf/packages
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define target_pkg %(t=%{name};
echo ${t#lpf-})
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]:
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714
--- Comment #15 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
Issues:
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /var/lib/lpf/packages/skype/state
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
Couple of issues in the %files section:
%{_datadir}/lpf/packages/%{target_pkg}
%attr(775,pkg-build,pkg-build) /var/lib/lpf/packages/%{target_pkg}
%attr(664,pkg-build,pkg-build) /var/lib/lpf/packages/%{target_pkg}/state
- First line is redundant with the second one.
- Third line is redundant with the second one; second one already includes the
path. If you want to own only the directory but not the files contained in it
please use %dir.
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
The license is MIT, but there's no license file installed. Please provide one
in %doc.
lpf-skype.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/skype/4.2.0.11/skype.spec HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
Please fix.
Almost the same issues as in comment number 18 of the lfp-spotify-client
review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973069#c18
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
Please re-upload spec file or srpm file to match.
After these fixes I will review the internal spec file.
Thanks.
--Simone
-
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714
--- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #15)
Issues:
Couple of issues in the %files section:
%{_datadir}/lpf/packages/%{target_pkg}
%attr(775,pkg-build,pkg-build) /var/lib/lpf/packages/%{target_pkg}
%attr(664,pkg-build,pkg-build) /var/lib/lpf/packages/%{target_pkg}/state
- First line is redundant with the second one.
No. Just removing the second line - different (and wrong) permissions.
- Third line is redundant with the second one;
No. Just removing the third line - different (and wrong) permissions.
second one already includes
the path. If you want to own only the directory but not the files contained
in it please use %dir.
What I do in the third line is to give the state file 664 permissions. IMHO,
using %dir would be less clear, it's not obvious in what way lpf-setup-pkg
populates this dir.
Added some %exclude to get rid of the warnings. Not really happy with this
solution, though.
The license is MIT, but there's no license file installed. Please provide
one in %doc.
Done.
lpf-skype.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/skype/4.2.0.11/skype.spec HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
Please fix.
Setting upstream to lpf upstream, fixed.
Almost the same issues as in comment number 18 of the lfp-spotify-client
review:
And almost the same reply :)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
Please re-upload spec file or srpm file to match.
Done.
New links:
srpm:
http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-skype/3/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-3.fc19.src.rpm
spec: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-skype/3/lpf-skype.spec
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #10 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Easiest proof would be to do a rawhide koji scratch build. While we're at it, why isn't lpf in f20 yet? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #11 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- I've postponed all lpf pushes: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362 (In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #10) Welcome onboard! Easiest proof would be to do a rawhide koji scratch build. Indeed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/watchlogs?taskID=6134863 While we're at it, why isn't lpf in f20 yet? I' ve postponed all lpf pushes: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- I don't really get it. It builds for me in mock on two different machines, and thus it should for you. You are using the rawhide buildroot i. e., mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 ... ? lpf is not available in fc19 nor f20 as of now, at least for me. The desktop file is created by lpf-setup-pkg. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #2 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- The question whether lpf-* packages are allowed in Fedora is by the fpc [1]. This might mean that this package won't go into fedora. OTOH, the review process is the same here and in rpmfusion, so I guess we could continue that being aware that where the packet eventually goes is up tp the fpc. [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/362 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- I think there's a leftover in the spec file, the package does not build: + /usr/share/lpf/scripts/lpf-setup-pkg /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-1.fc19.x86_64 /builddir/build/SOURCES/skype.spec.in + desktop-file-validate /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-1.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/applications/lpf-skype.desktop /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-1.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/applications/lpf-skype.desktop: file does not exist error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FhzCAC (%install) You can probably just remove line 33 of the spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Updated, new links: spec: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-skype/2/lpf-skype.spec srpm: http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-skype/2/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc20.src.rpm Changelog: * Fri Nov 1 2013 Alec Leamas lea...@nowhere.net - 4.2.0.11-2 - Adding README - Fix typo. Keeping %install section, it looks sane and works for me. Puzzled why it doesn't for you... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #4) Keeping %install section, it looks sane and works for me. Puzzled why it doesn't for you... I'm sorry but it's not working with mock. The only source is the Skype spec file; there's nothing installing it in place: Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.5VStda + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + rm -rf lpf-skype-4.2.0.11 + /usr/bin/mkdir -p lpf-skype-4.2.0.11 + cd lpf-skype-4.2.0.11 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + cp /builddir/build/SOURCES/README README + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2dOP41 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd lpf-skype-4.2.0.11 + exit 0 Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Sl7rWT + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + '[' /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 '!=' / ']' + rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 ++ dirname /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 + mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT + mkdir /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 + cd lpf-skype-4.2.0.11 + /usr/share/lpf/scripts/lpf-setup-pkg /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64 /builddir/build/SOURCES/skype.spec.in + desktop-file-validate /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/applications/lpf-skype.desktop /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/lpf-skype-4.2.0.11-2.fc19.x86_64/usr/share/applications/lpf-skype.desktop: file does not exist RPM build errors: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Sl7rWT (%install) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- My bad, I did not run it in mock. BBL. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 --- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- README installed in wrong section. Fixed, now builds in mock/rawhide for me. Updated in-place, same links release, changelog modified. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714
--- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #7)
Fixed, now builds in mock/rawhide for me.
Still not able to build in mock, the desktop part has not changed.
Source0:skype.spec.in
Source1:README
%install
# lpf-setup-pkg [eula] topdir specfile [sources...]
/usr/share/lpf/scripts/lpf-setup-pkg %{buildroot} %{SOURCE0}
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
cp %{SOURCE1} README
Where should the desktop file come from?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||negativ...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|negativ...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) --- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com --- After discussion on previous lpf package it is decided that all lpf packages requires legal review. Blocking on FE-LEGAL. In this case, I think the legal review is about the LICENSE file in the distribution, also available at http://leamas.fedorapeople.org/lpf-skype/1/LICENSE. The question, thus: is this non-redistributable license OK when used as a lpf package? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1023714] Review Request: lpf-skype: Skype internet phone client package bootstrap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: lpf skype: |Review Request: lpf-skype: |Skype internet phone client |Skype internet phone client |package bootstrap |package bootstrap -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
