[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Alias|Review_Request_SDL2 | -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752
Björn Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||ppi...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Björn Esser ---
I'll take this.
#
Have CC'ed Petr Pisar (ppisar), because he's the maintainer of "old"
SDL-branch. Some colab might be helpful on this, I think.
SDL2 is in RC state itm. Do you ITP SDL_{image,mixer}2 as well?
#
He goes the first review-run. Issues found. :(
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
---> What??? Can't find anything java-related in the pkg...
Must be a bug in f-r, then. I'll ignore this for now.
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
---> rebuild srpm, plz.
- Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-devel,
SDL2-static
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
---> false-positive (possible bug), are present in arched-form
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
---> nothing java-releated here, see above
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
---> nothing java-releated here, see above
- all files in %doc have wrong end-of-line encoding
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
---> use sed -i -e's!\r!!g' $file on them, please
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
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.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-static
---> is solved by requires devel-subpkg
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> issues present
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated", "zlib/libpng". 124 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt
---> License tag should be zlib and BSD and GPLv2+ and MIT
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[?]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
---> This will be co-existing with "old" SDL?
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justificat
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||989946 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lF7tetRc9r&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||Review_Request_SDL2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TiqvtNOrwx&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||848144 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9xFjgpZocj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov --- I'd like to see Koji scratchbuild logs. Igor in the future please provide link to the Koji build as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4Uoi5zwKkj&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov --- * I see you enabled static subpackage. Could you please elaborate a technical rationale behind this? * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GJPCHYRm8P&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko --- (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > * I see you enabled static subpackage. Could you please elaborate a > technical rationale behind this? No. SDL1 use it. > > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. this only for rhel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Yc83W6TjLz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov --- (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #4) > (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > > * I see you enabled static subpackage. Could you please elaborate a > > technical rationale behind this? > No. SDL1 use it. That's not a valid reason. So please remove it since we shouldn't encourage static libraries usage and even packaging. > > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. > this only for rhel That's not an explanation either. Please disable it. Also you enabled it wrongly so I'm assuming that you didn't test it. That's a bad sign - a maintainer enables things which he doesn't even tests. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cxXjAxjERz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) CC||bioinfornat...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Björn Esser --- *** Bug 848144 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8ngGd2SUiO&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) | Depends On|848144 | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IwPD7vnWaI&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752
--- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko ---
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #1)
> I'll take this.
>
> #
>
> Have CC'ed Petr Pisar (ppisar), because he's the maintainer of "old"
> SDL-branch. Some colab might be helpful on this, I think.
>
> SDL2 is in RC state itm. Do you ITP SDL_{image,mixer}2 as well?
http://www.libsdl.org/tmp/download-2.0.php
SDL version 2.0.0 (stable)
>
> #
>
> He goes the first review-run. Issues found. :(
>
> #
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
> Note: No javadoc subpackage present
> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
>
> ---> What??? Can't find anything java-related in the pkg...
>Must be a bug in f-r, then. I'll ignore this for now.
>
> - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
> the spec URL.
> Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
> /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/diff.txt
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
>
> ---> rebuild srpm, plz.
Really. He updates release tar.gz w/o changes in version. WTF?
>
> - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
> Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in SDL2-devel,
> SDL2-static
> See:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
>
> ---> false-positive (possible bug), are present in arched-form
>
> - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
>
> ---> nothing java-releated here, see above
>
> - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
> subpackage
> Note: No javadoc subpackage present
> See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
>
> ---> nothing java-releated here, see above
>
> - all files in %doc have wrong end-of-line encoding
> See:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-
> encoding
>
> ---> use sed -i -e's!\r!!g' $file on them, please
fixed
>
>
> = MUST items =
>
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
> [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [x]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
>
> 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.
> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
> [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> SDL2-static
>
> ---> is solved by requires devel-subpkg
>
> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>
> ---> issues present
>
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
> "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
> generated", "zlib/libpng". 124 files have unknown license. Detailed
> output of licensecheck in
> /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt
>
> ---> License tag should be zlib and BSD and GPLv2+ and MIT
fixed
>
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [?]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
> Provides are present.
>
> ---> This will be co-existing with "old" SDL?
yes. we should to support SDL and SDL2 simultaneously
>
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [x]: Spec
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar --- (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. I propose not to package SDL2 at all. Less packages we have less bugs the distribution contains. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CiVt3zLNiB&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #9 from Björn Esser --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #8) > (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #3) > > * Could you please just remove aRts, Esound, NAS support entirely? Less > > outdated featured your package has, less bugs it contains. > > I propose not to package SDL2 at all. Less packages we have less bugs the > distribution contains. This is some kind of ironic, isn't it? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Sr2ukRxn7X&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #10 from Igor Gnatenko --- Update! Changelog included. spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2.spec srpm: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc2.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CJEuT651mJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752
--- Comment #11 from Björn Esser ---
Still two minor issues. You can fix on SCM-import :)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package must own all directories that it creates.
See in report below.
- Proper License-breakdown. See in report below.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
---> yum provides */$srcfile doesn't report any file to be provided
from another package. Nothing bundled, I think.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> two small issues: License and owned-dirs
need fix on SCM-import
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated", "zlib/libpng". 125 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/989752-SDL2/licensecheck.txt
---> My bad... You should drop BSD and GPLv2+
First is from testsuite and latter from included libtool
But you need to keep MIT; it's from sources
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
---> devel doesn't own '%{_datadir}/aclocal'
change '%{_datadir}/aclocal/*' to '%{_datadir}/aclocal'
and all is fine. It's common on 28 other devel-pkgs to
own this dir, See: `yum provides */aclocal/`
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 7 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: 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]: 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
[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
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752
--- Comment #12 from Björn Esser ---
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #11)
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>
> ---> devel doesn't own '%{_datadir}/aclocal'
> change '%{_datadir}/aclocal/*' to '%{_datadir}/aclocal'
> and all is fine. It's common on 28 other devel-pkgs to
> own this dir, See: `yum provides */aclocal/`
Sorry my bad ;) Pkg must not own this dir! It's owned by filesystem already
and avail on every system.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PtnHs5yfLs&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #13 from Igor Gnatenko --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: SDL2 Short Description: A cross-platform multimedia library Owners: ignatenkobrain Branches: f19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IMER5dTuTA&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #14 from Igor Gnatenko --- spec: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2.spec srpm: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nqv2jUxP2N&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NK8qd3FenY&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Björn Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|989946 | |(f-r_detects_java-issues_in | |_c_pkg) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oAkqQYYEQG&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=W0ZNjEM2fR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cSs6wQcSq2&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #16 from Michael Schwendt --- What's the solution for the missing dependencies for the dlopen'ed shared libs? Has that changed in any way? bug 848144 comment 8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4uZE113tLg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gxdGRbvi4s&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vspD7WHNDz&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #18 from Petr Pisar --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #16) > What's the solution for the missing dependencies for the dlopen'ed shared > libs? Has that changed in any way? bug 848144 comment 8 Those are week dependencies and intended behaviour. SDL supports multiple outputs. E.g. you don't need any X11, you can run SDL application on framebuffer console. Or you can have even non-graphical SDL application (e.g. there is a joystick calibration application somewhere in kbd---pure virtual terminal thing). Thus there should not be any RPM dependency on X11 libraries or similar. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=a1ExDbiLbS&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #19 from Michael Schwendt --- Hmm, then it'll be the package maintainer's job to ensure that those sonames match what's provided in the package collection and that they don't change during a release. Probably not a problem with X11, but I haven't checked what other libs are opened. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=azaVi3E28J&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 dr.tri...@surfeu.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dr.tri...@surfeu.ch --- Comment #20 from dr.tri...@surfeu.ch --- Related to bug 990677. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nz2PntNmCW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=a2PrN9VLPE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-08-09 23:55:09 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AG5Ax6p4Au&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989752] Review Request: SDL2 - A cross-platform multimedia library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989752 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- SDL2-2.0.0-1.rc3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NAEbb6jmm6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
