[Bug 2237] Homer - live conferencing and more

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2237

--- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> 2012-03-23 10:34:52 CET ---
(In reply to comment #2)
>
> > Homer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: Homer-Source.tar.bz2
> > Since this is released code, it could retrieved using the sourceforge URL See
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
> Homer use not conventional url, I explain that in comment into the spec file.

Not true, it's accessible using sourceforge download URL:s, nothing strange
with them (although they don't exactly match the recipe in the link).

> > Homer-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
> > You must fix this. The cause is probably that the source is stripped by the
> > standard make. Most likely, this error will disappear when you fix the
> > compiler flags according to
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags. I'm not
> > sure, but out of the top of my head cmake honors the classical CFLAGS/CPPFLAGS
> > environment variables, which should make it reasonably easy to fix this.
> Homer use non conventional cmake compilation process. The developer prefer to
> use standard make to call cmake to build the binary files.

You must anyway fix this. You must apply %{optflags} as described in the link,
and the empty debug package  (which hopefully disappears once you fix this) is
also a blocker.

In the end, this might force you to patch the build files. However, I suspect
you can handle it using environment variables such as CCFLAGS and CPPFLAGS.

> > libHomer.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libHomerConference.so
> > These are trickier. Basically, rmplint complains because homer installs
> > libraries among the public libraries without proper so-names. I'm somewhat
> > worried about this, especially for libHomer.so. Does it need to be versioned?
> > Anyone, out there?
> I don't know ho to resolve this issue...for me can be ignored...

To be frank, I don't know if it can be ignored, although I think it might be
the case. Leaving this to whoever reviews this.

> > Other remarks:
> > Since you use desktop-file-install, the desktop-file-validate is not needed and
> > can be removed
> I follow the example reported in wiki page:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files

No you don't, it clearly says desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate.

> > IMHO it would be good to decrease the noise by removing comments such as
> > "Add .desktop file".
> The comments are problems? Sorry...I like comments to understand better what I
> do in the spec file...

I don't agree in this specific case, but this is a personal thing. Feel
comfortable with you package.

-- 
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.