[Bug 4225] Review Request: ffms2 - Wrapper library around libffmpeg
RPM Fusion Bugzilla
noreply at rpmfusion.org
Mon Oct 24 00:18:24 CEST 2016
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4225
leigh scott <leigh123linux at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|2 |3, 4
--- Comment #14 from leigh scott <leigh123linux at gmail.com> ---
Package Approved.
Please fix this issue when you import
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: ffms2-2.22/configure.ac:49
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
"Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/leigh/4225-ffms2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[?]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 163840 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
ffms2-debuginfo
[-]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
2.2.3 is available
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTool
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ffms2-2.22-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm
ffms2-devel-2.22-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm
ffms2-debuginfo-2.22-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm
ffms2-2.22-3.fc24.src.rpm
ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libffmpeg -> LibreOffice
ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libffmpeg -> LibreOffice
ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libavformat ->
malformation
ffms2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffmsindex
ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libffmpeg ->
LibreOffice
ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libavformat ->
malformation
ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ffms2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libffmpeg -> LibreOffice
ffms2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libffmpeg -> LibreOffice
ffms2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libavformat -> malformation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: ffms2-debuginfo-2.22-3.fc24.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libffmpeg ->
LibreOffice
ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libavformat ->
malformation
ffms2-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libffmpeg -> LibreOffice
ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libffmpeg -> LibreOffice
ffms2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libavformat ->
malformation
ffms2.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libffms2.so.4.0.0
/lib64/libm.so.6
ffms2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ffmsindex
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Requires
--------
ffms2-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
ffms2(x86-64)
libffms2.so.4()(64bit)
pkgconfig(libavcodec)
pkgconfig(libavformat)
pkgconfig(libavresample)
pkgconfig(libavutil)
pkgconfig(libswscale)
ffms2-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ffms2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libavcodec.so.57()(64bit)
libavcodec.so.57(LIBAVCODEC_57)(64bit)
libavformat.so.57()(64bit)
libavformat.so.57(LIBAVFORMAT_57)(64bit)
libavresample.so.3()(64bit)
libavresample.so.3(LIBAVRESAMPLE_3)(64bit)
libavutil.so.55()(64bit)
libavutil.so.55(LIBAVUTIL_55)(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libffms2.so.4()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libswscale.so.4()(64bit)
libswscale.so.4(LIBSWSCALE_4)(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
ffms2-devel:
ffms2-devel
ffms2-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(ffms2)
ffms2-debuginfo:
ffms2-debuginfo
ffms2-debuginfo(x86-64)
ffms2:
ffms2
ffms2(x86-64)
libffms2.so.4()(64bit)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/FFMS/ffms2/archive/2.22/ffms2-2.22.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
7c5202fa2e49186fb3bb815e5b12ca71f05ec09cb707ffd9465852e21a06fdad
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7c5202fa2e49186fb3bb815e5b12ca71f05ec09cb707ffd9465852e21a06fdad
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: ffms2-2.22/configure.ac:49
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-24-x86_64-rpmfusion_free
--other-bz https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org -b 4225
Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/attachments/20161023/469d3529/attachment.html>
More information about the rpmfusion-developers
mailing list