rpmfusion-developers
March 2012
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
- 20 participants
- 132 discussions
[Bug 1901] Review request: bino - 3D video player
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1901
--- Comment #23 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad(a)redhat.com> 2012-03-01 11:21:31 CET ---
(In reply to comment #22)
Thanks for the review. Updated files:
http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/bino-1.2.1-2.fc16.src.rpm
http://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/bino.spec
> Issues:
> [!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
> Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Fixed
> [!] SHOULD The ld-patch needs some kind of justification, an upstream bug
> reference or a comment.
Added comment, this patch is required in order to build due to Fedora DSO
linkage change. This patch has been accepted by upstream and is not needed for
their devel release.
> [!] MUST The %post and %preun texinfo snippets needs corresponding
> Requires(post): info and Requires(preun): info.
Fixed
> [!] MUST: The License: tag should be updated to reflect the licenses
> in the package. Removing the pkg stuff in %prep might possibly
> make things simpler. Using system icons instead of src/icons might
> also help. Non-GPLv3+ licenses includes pkg/* and src/icons*/*.
> Some kind of license breakdown is probably needed.
I am not expert about licensing, but I am not sure if there was any problem
(but I implemented all the proposed changes):
* The pkg stuff is not used/released in the RPM binary package, thus I think it
was OK according to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#Does_the_License:_tag_cover_t...
Even after the removal, the source code is still distributed in the srpm
package. So I am not sure if the proposed change resolves anything.
* For the oxygen icons, IMHO they are licensed under LGPLv3+ thus we probably
don't need to explicitly note this because the resulting work is released under
GPLv3+. I used the following reference:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license....
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_...
--
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.
12 years, 1 month
- 1
- 0
[Bug 1901] Review request: bino - 3D video player
by RPM Fusion Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1901
Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #22 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 2012-03-01 09:44:34 CET ---
My first "official" review... Could someone please look over my shoulder about
the bundled icons, am I judging this correct?
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture (i386).
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
Contains a subset of icons from oxygen-icon-theme, a corner case.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
pkg dir seems to contain MIT-type licenses for both MacOS and w32.
Icons seems to be either MIT or LGPL3+
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK besides what's noted in other remarks.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Texinfo snippets in %post and %preun lacks corresponding deps.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent, also on installed package.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package : 8110094f05c02667760eda720f84618f
MD5SUM upstream package : 8110094f05c02667760eda720f84618f
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (attached below).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
Looked at some clips without problems, but no 3D gear available.
[-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[-]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!] SHOULD The ld-patch needs some kind of justification, an upstream bug
reference or a comment.
[!] MUST The %post and %preun texinfo snippets needs corresponding
Requires(post): info and Requires(preun): info.
[!] MUST: The License: tag should be updated to reflect the licenses
in the package. Removing the pkg stuff in %prep might possibly
make things simpler. Using system icons instead of src/icons might
also help. Non-GPLv3+ licenses includes pkg/* and src/icons*/*.
Some kind of license breakdown is probably needed.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_hav...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lice...
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+source/bino/+copyright
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2
External plugins:
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/bino-1.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm
mimehandler(application/ogg)
[yet another 32 mimehandlers removed]
bino = 1.2.1-1.fc16
bino(x86-32) = 1.2.1-1.fc16
=
/bin/sh
libGL.so.1
libGLEW.so.1.6
libGLEWmx.so.1.6
libQtCore.so.4
libQtGui.so.4
libQtOpenGL.so.4
libX11.so.6
libass.so.4
libavcodec.so.53(LIBAVCODEC_53)
libavdevice.so.53(LIBAVDEVICE_53)
libavformat.so.53(LIBAVFORMAT_53)
libavutil.so.51(LIBAVUTIL_51)
libc.so.6
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
libopenal.so.1
libpthread.so.0
libstdc++.so.6
libswscale.so.2
libswscale.so.2(LIBSWSCALE_2)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/bino-debuginfo-1.2.1-1.fc16.i686.rpm
bino-debuginfo = 1.2.1-1.fc16
bino-debuginfo(x86-32) = 1.2.1-1.fc16
=
--
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.
12 years, 1 month
- 1
- 0