[Bug 1030] Review request: xbmc - Media center
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1030
--- Comment #9 from rc040203(a)freenet.de 2009-12-31 14:51:41 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
>
> [FWIW: I have a spec for xbmc of my own, but do not indent to publish it for
> several, different reasons. The comments below are based on what I am observing
> without having looked into your package.]
Any reason why you hadn't submitted a package review for XBMC yourself then?
As
I said, there "several different reasons":
1) I am not sure, I be will using xbmc in longer terms. All I did was to
recently pick up Rolf F.'s spec and to try bringing into shape to get an
impression about xbmc, myself.
2) Christmas holidays interferred (and still interfer) - I haven't had any
chance to submit these patches anywhere, yet.
> > Note that XBMC is a big package, the SRPM is 135 MB
(although the binary is
> > only 32 MB).
> Much of the size stems from upstream including windows and osx binaries.
> I'd recommend to prune them from their tarball.
Yes, I had noticed that, although I believe that Fedora prefers pristine
tarballs where possible. Of course if any .dlls or binaries are in there, they
need to be stripped out in any case since they may not be distributable, so we
may as well remove anything that isn't strictly necessary.
Well, what upstream
calls "packaging", leaves a lot of room for improvement ;)
> > 1. The first issue (as revealed in the rpmlint log, below)
is that xbmc
> > installs no-arch independent code in /usr/share/xbmc/. We probably need
>
> s/need/MUST/
> No go without having this fixed.
Right, the "probably" was in reference to the fact that it would be good to
enlist upstream's advice in fixing this properly, versus only applying patches
which at least for me is more risky since I don't know the xbmc codebase that
well, not to whether it was necessary for the package review.
Neither do I.
It's just that I have been wading though upstream's mess and try
to address obvious issues.
> There are other majors issues I am aware about:
>
> * the spyce stuff is outdated and breaks with python-2.6 (Earlier versions of
> my spec failed to build in mock because of this - I have a patch, I grabbed
> somewhere on the net.)
IIRC, this issue pops up when building with debug-infos
enabled and with libdir
fixed. Some of rpm's python-scripts will choke on the scripts, because these
are using keywords which are reserved in python-2.6.
> * parts of xbmc don't acknowledge RPM_OPT_FLAGS
>
> * Lack of DESTDIR support.
OK, so it seems that your patches fix the DESTDIR issue at least.
Yes, this was a fallout from addressing the bindir/libdir issue.
--
Configure bugmail: http://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.