https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #27 from Peter Lemenkov ---
(In reply to Simon Farnsworth from comment #26)
> I'm going to go with the python-gstreamer1 name (to match perl-GStreamer and
> rubygem-gstreamer, which are the other two language bindings for
> GStream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #26 from Simon Farnsworth ---
I'm going to go with the python-gstreamer1 name (to match perl-GStreamer and
rubygem-gstreamer, which are the other two language bindings for
GStreamer-0.10) and add Provides: gstreamer1-python for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #25 from Peter Lemenkov ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #24)
> > The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> > I think we should stay with gstreamer1-* scheme rather than use python-*
> > one
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #24 from Michael Schwendt ---
> The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> I think we should stay with gstreamer1-* scheme rather than use python-* one.
What is the rationale?
The package is a Python Modu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
Peter Lemenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #23 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #22 from Michael Schwendt ---
With regard to the Python add-on naming guidelines, feel free to follow this
FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/375
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #21 from Simon Farnsworth ---
I've now done a koji scratch build, just to show that it builds on all primary
arches: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6301332
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #20 from Simon Farnsworth ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #19)
> Hmm, I haven't had a look at the spec file before...
>
> > Name: gstreamer1-python
>
> Since it's a Python module to make it easier to use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #19 from Michael Schwendt ---
Hmm, I haven't had a look at the spec file before...
> Name: gstreamer1-python
Since it's a Python module to make it easier to use GStreamer within Python, it
should following the %parent-%
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #18 from Simon Farnsworth ---
(In reply to Dan Fruehauf from comment #15)
> Simon, things look already pretty spotless, especially if Michael is
> reviewing your stuff :)
>
> I wonder though why you wouldn't just include in %files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
Peter Lemenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
--- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
Peter Lemenkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
Dan Fruehauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||malko...@gmail.com
--- Comment #15 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #14 from Simon Farnsworth ---
Makes sense - I'm now down to just complaints about COPYING (and upstream have
applied my patches), so I believe that the package should now pass review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt ---
> I wonder why it didn't complain about Gst.py as well, then.
I've debugged it. It only peeks at the first 1024 bytes of each file. So, sort
of a bug or "by design". ;-)
--
You are receiving this ma
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #12 from Simon Farnsworth ---
I wonder why it didn't complain about Gst.py as well, then.
Thanks Michael - I've sent upstream a new patch
(https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=720317), and fixed up my local
patch to not patc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #11 from Michael Schwendt ---
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
which mentions that file COPYING must not be patched.
rpmlint's regexp for finding wrong FSF addresses is this:
fsf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #10 from Simon Farnsworth ---
I've sent a patch upstream for the dated FSF address, which has been applied to
git. I've also cut that patch down and applied it in my package (Patch0:
0001-Update-FSF-address.patch). This still isn't
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
--- Comment #9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #8 from Simon Farnsworth ---
With my package, I'm hitting an rpmlint error that I can't seem to fix; it
claims that GstPbutils.py has the wrong FSF address after my patch is applied.
When I inspect the file manually, it's correct,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #7 from Simon Farnsworth ---
Whichever would be the best way to get this package maintained in upstream
Fedora. I have to have it in my employer's in-house fork of Fedora, hence
sharing what I'm doing with upstream (my life is easi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||limburg...@gmail.com
Blocks|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #5 from Simon Farnsworth ---
"and to be" should have been "and to be explicit about what I'm packaging,
rather than using a glob".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notifie
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #4 from Simon Farnsworth ---
Other gstreamer1 packages[1] use "GStreamer" not "GStreamer1" in the summary;
I'm copying them for consistency. Is it worth breaking consistency for this one
package?
I've updated the spec and the SRPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
--- Comment #2 from Simon Farnsworth ---
I should note that I'm now CC'd on this bug from my personal account, so review
here will be taken into account.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are alw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
Simon Farnsworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||si...@farnz.org.uk
--- Comment #1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034341
Simon Farnsworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR),
28 matches
Mail list logo
