[Bug 2664] exfat-utils - Utilities for exFAT file system
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2664
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com
Blocks||4
--- Comment #2 from Alec Leamas 2013-03-13 07:51:39 CET
---
Issues
=
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Same as 2663: missing trailing newline, fix by purging
changelog before importing (leaving just 1.0.1-1 entry).
This is no blocker.
*** Approved
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v3 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/leamas/tmp/FedoraReview/2664-exfat-
utils/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: 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 justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 1 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]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[x]: P
[Bug 2663] fuse-exfat - Free exFAT file system implementation
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2663
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|2 |4
--- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas 2013-03-13 07:29:20
CET ---
Issues:
===
- There seem to be a missing newline at end of spec(?), see diff below.
- Fix by purging complete changelog, leaving just the 1.0.1-1 as the initial
one before importing package.
These are no blockers.
*** Approved
(and now you owe me one ;) )
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v3 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/leamas/tmp/FedoraReview/2663-fuse-
exfat/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: 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 justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 1 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]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve t
[Bug 2664] exfat-utils - Utilities for exFAT file system
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2664 --- Comment #1 from tingp...@tingping.se 2013-03-13 06:02:28 CET --- Updated to 1.0.1: SPEC: https://gist.github.com/TingPing/998ecd684161afbc8197/raw/f48e2a18db371f8a1dfcccb80e002f1377f54b16/exfat-utils.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5510351/exfat-utils-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2663] fuse-exfat - Free exFAT file system implementation
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2663 --- Comment #9 from tingp...@tingping.se 2013-03-13 05:51:52 CET --- updated: SPEC: https://gist.github.com/TingPing/4936f7cba79001cdab57/raw/b9e7f31184097ee2464c0eac8711321137dad210/fuse-exfat.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5510351/fuse-exfat-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
Re: xbmc 12 on EL 6
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Another option is to backport xbmc to work with taglib 1.6. If that's > not feasible, then creating taglib18 would be preferable. Or just not upgrade xbmc. There's a limit to how new software one can provide on an old distro with old libraries. Kevin Kofler
Re: Mass rebuilt for F-19 on RPM Fusion - next week
On Ter, 2013-03-12 at 19:43 +0100, Andrea Musuruane wrote: > better late then never , the fails are: better late than never I hate my errors sorry -- Sérgio M. B.
Re: Mass rebuilt for F-19 on RPM Fusion - next week
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > better late then never , the fails are: > 16390 zsnes zsnes-1_51-13_fc19 > I found this patch made by Debian to fix this issue: http://patch-tracker.debian.org/patch/series/view/zsnes/1.510+bz2-5/0012-Fix-build-with-gcc-4.7.patch I'll apply it soon. Bye, Andrea.
Re: Mass rebuilt for F-19 on RPM Fusion - next week
On Ter, 2013-03-05 at 22:00 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > 2013/3/4 Sérgio Basto > On Sáb, 2013-02-23 at 15:51 +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As the mass rebuild for fedora is already passed, I would > like to > > schedule a rebuilt of the RPM Fusion package in devel/F-19 > next week. > > > > There is a need to check if the devel branches are higher > for each > > package. > > > Hi, > Mass rebuild on RPMFusion, has already finished ? > what is the list of those packages that not compiled ? > > Mass rebuilt occurred on the free section based on packages still > using dist tag older than .fc19. > This was a wrong assumption as some packages was not rebuilt with > gcc48 whereas built during the fc19 development process. > > I will try to resubmit a list later unless someone come with such a > list. > > Build failing were from jobs 16386 to 16390 as seen in: > http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/build-status/failed.psp better late then never , the fails are: 16390 zsnes zsnes-1_51-13_fc19 16371 terminatorX terminatorX-3_84-3_fc19 16367 SheepShaver SheepShaver-2_3-0_11_20060514_fc19 16357 normalize normalize-0_7_7-8_fc19 16350 motion motion-3_3_0-trunkREV534_fc19 16347 mixxx mixxx-1_10_1-2_fc19 16340 lxdream lxdream-0_9_1-7_fc19 16324 k9copy k9copy-2_3_8-3_fc19 16312 foo2zjs foo2zjs-0_2005-4_fc19 16306 DVDAuthorWizard DVDAuthorWizard-1_4_6-5_fc19 16309 faad2 faad2-2_7-3_fc19 16391 xvidcorexvidcore-1_3_2-4_fc19 16303 cairo-dock cairo-dock-2_4_0_2-2_fc19 16301 BasiliskII BasiliskII-1_0-0_20060501_3_fc19 16300 audacity-freeworld audacity-freeworld-2_0_1-2_fc19 16387 xvidcorexvidcore-1_3_2-4_fc19 16386 xvid4conf xvid4conf-1_12-6_fc19 but don't found any with gcc 4.8 problems ... > -- Sérgio M. B.
[Bug 2717] Review Request: pianobar - Command-line Pandora Internet radio client
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2717
--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas 2013-03-12 16:51:34 CET
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> pianobar builds and runs on Fedora without libfaad2 and without libmad.
> However, when I ran it in that configuration, everything worked except for
> playback. I could view and manage my stations, but as soon as I attempted to
> play one, I was informed that support for AAC was not compiled into the
> application. So it can go into core Fedora but would probably generate nothing
> but a long string of complaints from users.
Fair enough for me.
> I'm a Fedora packager. FAS account greghellings.
Good!
> Changing the build target to 'make debug' added the debug symbols to the build
> and cleaned up that warning. New SRPM is
>
> http://dl.thehellings.com/pianobar/pianobar-2012.12.01-3.fc18.src.rpm
Following that link you would also find that you have not applied %optflags. I
suggest that you do that first (needed anyway) and sees if that's enough to
build the -debuginfo package.
Please always publish both spec: and srpm: links when updating.
Some other remarks:
- At a glance only find BSD license in the code. Why is License: LGPL or ASL?
- What's the purpose of he _pkg_name macro? Why not just refer to %{name}?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2663] fuse-exfat - Free exFAT file system implementation
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2663 --- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas 2013-03-12 16:06:33 CET --- And: please clean up the formatting. The spec seems to have been written using 4-spaces tab width. However, most tools have a default 8 spaces tab width messing things up. Please use standard tabwidth 8 (or just expand to spaces). The spec in the srpm is actually not the same as in the link; there are whitespace diffs. Please review trailing space, last newline etc. which might be the culprit here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2663] fuse-exfat - Free exFAT file system implementation
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2663
--- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas 2013-03-12 15:55:00 CET
---
OK, let's see if we can get this through (in which case you will owe me one ;)
)
Some initial remarks:
- You don't apply the %{optflags} macro [1]
- Probably related to above: there is no -debuginfo package [2]
- You can remove the obsolete Buildroot: definition [3]
- There is is (nowadays) a 1.0.1 version available
The manpage handling is messy, disregards timestamps and relies on .gz
extension (which might change). Probably better to just copy that file (using
-a) and let rpmbuild handle compressing.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Debuginfo_packages
[3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2717] Review Request: pianobar - Command-line Pandora Internet radio client
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2717 --- Comment #2 from Greg Hellings 2013-03-12 15:02:43 CET --- pianobar builds and runs on Fedora without libfaad2 and without libmad. However, when I ran it in that configuration, everything worked except for playback. I could view and manage my stations, but as soon as I attempted to play one, I was informed that support for AAC was not compiled into the application. So it can go into core Fedora but would probably generate nothing but a long string of complaints from users. I'm a Fedora packager. FAS account greghellings. Changing the build target to 'make debug' added the debug symbols to the build and cleaned up that warning. New SRPM is http://dl.thehellings.com/pianobar/pianobar-2012.12.01-3.fc18.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 2717] Review Request: pianobar - Command-line Pandora Internet radio client
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2717 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas 2013-03-12 14:39:43 CET --- Just some drive-by comments: Can the package actually be built and run on Fedora in a meaningful way, using faad2 and libmad if it's available? In that case, I guess this should go to Fedora. Are you a Fedora packager, or do you need a sponsor? debuginfo-without-sources: See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#debuginfo-without-sources -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
Re: xbmc 12 on EL 6
Hi Ken, On Monday, 11 March 2013 at 22:17, Ken Dreyer wrote: > I've had two users ask for xbmc 12 on EL 6. > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/2699 > > The main problem that I see is that RHEL 6 ships taglib 1.6, whereas > xbmc 12 requires taglib 1.8. Is there a preference for: > > A) Build xbmc with a bundled, static version of taglib 1.8? > > B) Ship "taglib18" in EPEL? This implies that I would retire this > package if I ever stopped requiring it for xbmc. > > Neither option sounds good, so I was wondering which one would be the > lesser of two evils. Another option is to backport xbmc to work with taglib 1.6. If that's not feasible, then creating taglib18 would be preferable. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
