https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #33 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #29 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
SPEC:http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packaging/zita-alsa-pcmi-0.2.0-8.fc17.src.rpm
SRPM:
http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packaging/zita-alsa-pcmi-0.2.0-8.fc17.src.rpm
rpmlint output from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #30 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
and yes, i use the same email address everywhere :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #26 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
SPEC: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packaging/zita-alsa-pcmi.spec
SRPM:
http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packaging/zita-alsa-pcmi-0.2.0-7.fc17.src.rpm
[makerpm@Fafnir SPECS]$ rpmlint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #27 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
Another informal review created:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835028
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #28 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #26)
I'm guessing the above is from inlcuding alsa-devel as a requirement for the
devel pacakge?
I don't think it is for that reason. Those are standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #25 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #24)
Doesn't that mean that it's possible to release it under GPLv3 at our option?
Yes, there is no licensing conflict as GPLv2+ software is a superclass of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #24 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #17 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 593402
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=593402action=edit
Patch for sed line, apps version
This is to remove the sed lines from the .spec. This only
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #18 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 593403
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=593403action=edit
patch for sed line, libs version
This is to remove the sed lines from the .spec file. This
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #19 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
I created the patches by running the sed lines on the Makefiles on the
commandline, and modifying it so that it would take OPTFLAGS as an arguemnt. It
doesn't build though, i get the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #20 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
Updated spec:http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/zita-alsa-pcmi.spec
updated SRPM:
http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/zita-alsa-pcmi-0.2.0-5.fc17.src.rpm
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #21 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
Try this:
%build
export OPTFLAGS=%{optflags}
make PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_libdir} %{?_smp_mflags} -C libs
make PREFIX=%{_prefix} LIBDIR=%{_libdir} %{?_smp_mflags} -C apps
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #22 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
Here is (hopefully) the final update
spec: http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/zita-alsa-pcmi.spec
srpm:
http://jvlomax.fedorapeople.org/packeging/zita-alsa-pcmi-0.2.0-6.fc17.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #23 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com ---
Thank you for the update. I did a full review on this:
! rpmlint says
zita-alsa-pcmi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US clalsadrv -
clausal
zita-alsa-pcmi.x86_64: W:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #16 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com ---
Sorry, I accidentally downloaded the SRPM from the original post. Now, as a
starter, I want to point a few things:
* Changelog format does not fit the requirements:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #14 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
I have gone though the checklist, and can't find any issued. I built and tested
it on fedora 17 i686 and it's working fine
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #10 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
I don't see why i should have to call ldconfig in %build when rpmlint gives a
warning and
sed -i -e 's|-O2 -Wall|%{optflags} -I../libs|' \
-e 's|ldconfig||' libs/Makefile
# We don't
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #11 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Ah - ok. It is kind of a false positive but one way is to remove the warning
is to change it back the way it was and explicitly call
ldconfig -n
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #12 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
That makes more sense :D Fixed it now, and no rpmlint warning anymore. Thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #13 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
(ongoing) informal reviews can be found at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829971
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829970
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #8 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
I have fixed it as requested and updated the change log, but now rpmlint gives
me this warning (I'm guessing for running ld config in the build enviroment):
rpm-buildroot-usage %prep -e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #9 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
Ah - ok. It is kind of a false positive but one way is to remove the warning is
to change it back the way it was and explicitly call
ldconfig -n %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
in your
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #4 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
I based the spec file on the zita-resample .spec file, as they are both similar
in how they work (and I'm still learning to use .spec files.). As to why the
author of that package doesn't
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #5 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
As Michael suggested you could run ldconfig in the buildroot. Just make it part
of your sed command
sed -i -e 's|-O2 -Wall|%{optflags}|' \
-e 's|ldconfig|ldconfig -n
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #6 from Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com ---
Fixed
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #7 from Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com ---
You can drop -I../libs from the sed command on libs/Makefile
Its also customary to bump the release number and add an entry in the change
log, even in review. If you have a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
There's an eyebrow-rasier in the spec file:
sed -i -e 's|-O2 -Wall|%{optflags} -I../libs|' \
-e 's|ldconfig||' libs/Makefile
# We don't want to run ldconfig in the build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825854
Jørn Lomax northlo...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|rawhide |17
Blocks|
33 matches
Mail list logo
