[Bug 2474] Review request: gstreamer1-plugins-ugly - GStreamer 1.0 streaming media framework "ugly" plug-ins

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2474

Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bochecha at fedoraproject.org

--- Comment #1 from Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> 2012-09-11 06:48:13 CEST ---
First of all, I'm not a RPMFusion contributor, but I'm a Fedora packager (FAS
account is 'bochecha' if you want to verify my credentials). Nicolas Chauvet
told me I could help with the reviews here anyway, so here it comes.

I'm not aware of any RPMFusion-specific guidelines, but the wiki suggests that
they are identical to the Fedora ones, so I'm reviewing this package as if it
were proposed for inclusion in Fedora.

== Summary of issues ==

The package should own %{_datadir}/gtk-doc, or require the gtk-doc package.
Similar packages will usually do the former in Fedora, to avoid introducing a
big dependency chain.

== Full Review ==

[x] package passes
[-] not applicable
[!] package fails

[x] rpmlint output is clean
  gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer -> G
Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
  gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
  gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer
  gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer ->
G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
  gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
  gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer
  gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-devel-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer
  gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-devel-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer
  4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
  => These can all be ignored

[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license
[x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
[x] The spec file must be written in American English
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL
    a0bce6db602513b65e86792e264b04d9fcc02949  gst-plugins-ugly-0.11.93.tar.xz
[x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture
[x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[-] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review
[!] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly
[x] Each package must consistently use macros
[x] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[-] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[x] Subpackages requiring the base package
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built
[-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it
[-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[x] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts

As I said, I'm not a RPMFusion contributor, so I'm not sure whether I'm allowed
to formally approve packages, but if I were, I'd approve it, as the only issue
is minor and I believe it can be fixed after importing into the VCS.

-- 
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.