[Bug 1816] Review request: minidlna - Lightweight DLNA/UPnP-AV server targeted at embedded systems
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1816
Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|3 |4
--- Comment #8 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org> 2012-01-17 10:29:32 CET ---
(In reply to comment #7)
The problem is that there is no suitable default presentation_url
because the
media files are usually under a user's home dir. Therefore this parameter must
be edited manually. Other suggestions are appreciated :-)
You can test minidlna using a DLNA DMP such as XMBC. Upnp-inspector is also
available for Fedora to analyze the DLNA stack components.
Well, I'm very new to upnp/dlna and still not sure how it works (or if my LAN
is mangling upnp announces)
Looking through upnp-inspector I found the default URI is the same as I am
specting, so now I think my comment is obvious.
I still have problems with systemd but I still have to investigate
them better.
I just noticed that if I comment the User and the Group lines in
minidlna.service it always work.
Maybe you should ask advice to the systemd gurus.
Anyway here it is an updated package.
final checklist:
+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
?: Question or clairification needed
N: not applicable
MUST:
[=] rpmlint output: shown in comment: none
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license: GPLv2
[+] license field matches the actual license: spec credits GPLv2
[+] license file is included in %doc: COPYING
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16 x86
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[+] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[+] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8
SHOULD:
[N] query upstream for license text
[=] description and summary contains available translations
[+] package builds in mock
[?] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64
[?] package functions as described: service is up and running, didn't test
funcionality
[+] sane scriptlets
[N] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[+] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts
*** APPROVED ***
--
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.