[Bug 26] Review request: dvbcut - Clip and convert DVB transport streams to MPEG2 program streams

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26


Andrea Musuruane <musuruan at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|3                           |4




--- Comment #41 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan at gmail.com>  2009-01-02 14:03:15 ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> > [-] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> >         Use an %{alphatag} beginning with the date in YYYYMMDD format 
> >         (this is OK) and followed by up to 16 (ASCII) alphanumeric characters 
> >         of your choosing (this is not OK). For example: 20081218svn. See:
> That could be read to be at 1<=charscount<=16, I guess. I had read the

I think you meant 0<=charscount<=16.

> guideline in conjunction with looking at another spec (ffmpeg), which doesn't
> use an alphatag, there is quite a few packages in RPM Fusion that do this:
> BasiliskII, SheepShaver, *madwifi, arcem, autopano-sift-C, ffmpeg,
> *iscsitarget, larabie, live555, slmodem, vdrsync, x264.

The change you made is OK for me. You may want to use a macro to handle the svn
revision.

> > [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> > license.
> >         README.icons say that icons are under LGPLv2
> >         Source files says licences is GPLv2+
> >         Therefore licence must be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2, See:
> Would this apply ?
> "7: LGPLv2.1 gives you permission to relicense the code under any version of
> the GPL since GPLv2. If you can switch the LGPLed code in this case to using an
> appropriate version of the GPL instead (as noted in the table), you can make
> this combination. "
> 
> I'm not sure what relicensing would entail: does it mean you have to adjust
> every file mentioning the LGPL 2.1 to GPL2 or greater ?

I think the Fedora guidelines are quite clear about this case: "If your package
contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses,
then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as a separator."

The change you made is OK.

> I think this is probably just a temporary connection problem, since it works
> for me at the moment.
> 
> This did lead me to review the script; I adjusted the commented out command
> that nukes the internally included ffmpeg sources and patches from the svn tree
> to use a find rather than rm.

Yes, it was a temporary problem.

I verified that the content of source archives matches the one created by the
snapshot script.

> > SHOULD Items:
> > [=] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
> > files.
> >         Timestamps are not preserved using the original makefile. This should
> >         be patched.
> Isn't the only file that is built is dvbcut executable ? It would have the time
> that the rpmbuild %build completed. A moment later %install sticks it in the
> buildroot. Is that the concern you are raising ?

No. There is also the man entry, whose timestamp is not preserved. This is a
SHOULD item and therefore it is not mandatory.

> New spec: 
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut.spec
> srpm:
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut-0.5.4-6.20090101svn138.fc9.src.rpm

Not found. I found dvbcut-0.5.4-6.20090101svn138.fc10.src.rpm thought. I
reviewed this.


APPROVED.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.