[Bug 1030] Review request: xbmc - Media center

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1030





--- Comment #9 from rc040203 at freenet.de  2009-12-31 14:51:41 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > (In reply to comment #0)
> > 
> > [FWIW: I have a spec for xbmc of my own, but do not indent to publish it for
> > several, different reasons. The comments below are based on what I am observing
> > without having looked into your package.]
> 
> Any reason why you hadn't submitted a package review for XBMC yourself then?
As I said, there "several different reasons":

1) I am not sure, I be will using xbmc in longer terms. All I did was to
recently pick up Rolf F.'s spec and to try bringing into shape to get an
impression about xbmc, myself.

2) Christmas holidays interferred (and still interfer) - I haven't had any
chance to submit these patches anywhere, yet.

> > > Note that XBMC is a big package, the SRPM is 135 MB (although the binary is
> > > only 32 MB).
> > Much of the size stems from upstream including windows and osx binaries.
> > I'd recommend to prune them from their tarball.
> 
> Yes, I had noticed that, although I believe that Fedora prefers pristine
> tarballs where possible.  Of course if any .dlls or binaries are in there, they
> need to be stripped out in any case since they may not be distributable, so we
> may as well remove anything that isn't strictly necessary.
Well, what upstream calls "packaging", leaves a lot of room for improvement ;)

> > > 1. The first issue (as revealed in the rpmlint log, below) is that xbmc
> > > installs no-arch independent code in /usr/share/xbmc/.  We probably need
> > 
> > s/need/MUST/
> > No go without having this fixed.
> 
> Right, the "probably" was in reference to the fact that it would be good to
> enlist upstream's advice in fixing this properly, versus only applying patches
> which at least for me is more risky since I don't know the xbmc codebase that
> well, not to whether it was necessary for the package review.
Neither do I. It's just that I have been wading though upstream's mess and try
to address obvious issues.

> > There are other majors issues I am aware about:
> > 
> > * the spyce stuff is outdated and breaks with python-2.6 (Earlier versions of
> > my spec failed to build in mock because of this - I have a patch, I grabbed
> > somewhere on the net.)
IIRC, this issue pops up when building with debug-infos enabled and with libdir
fixed. Some of rpm's python-scripts will choke on the scripts, because these
are using keywords which are reserved in python-2.6.

> > * parts of xbmc don't acknowledge RPM_OPT_FLAGS
> > 
> > * Lack of DESTDIR support.
> 
> OK, so it seems that your patches fix the DESTDIR issue at least. 

Yes, this was a fallout from addressing the bindir/libdir issue.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://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.