https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2, 30 -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #2 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-30 15:12:47 CET --- BTW,33 errors is a bit clumsy even if they could be ignored. And, in ~/bin lives fsf-fix.sh, which never, ever will be shown to anyone. As a result, there is http://pastebin.com/Z9yCQUct, a patch which fixes everything besides COPYING. Use it as you like, possibly forget or trash it. There are similar problems in the .po files, but rmplint doen't care about them and they thus not fixed. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-30 19:39:51 CET --- (In reply to comment #1) Good point, I will make this change; Fedora's version guidelines are a little vague, hence why I omitted the revision number. I was under the impression it was assumed it would then need to be zipped. If you can provide me an example used in a current RPMFusion or Fedora package, I will be fully willing to change it. I will clarify it does not give a zip file else wise or for the time being. I don't think it is needed, but I will check to make sure when I have a chance. (In reply to comment #2) I've been strongly advised not to try and fix source code unless it causes it not to build. As well, I don't have interest to fix bugs, I will report this upstream and as soon as it's fixed, update the source to that revision. Also can you elaborate on the issues with the .po files? The only license I see in the *.po files are "This file is distributed under the same license as the pcsxr package." (In reply to comment #3) My apologies, I meant to put GPLv2+, not GPLv2. I seem to have been a little too hasty when posted this spec. As well, I seem to have forgotten to run licensecheck to make sure the debian-upstream/copyright was correct Worst case scenario is that I ask upstream to fix this issue, or ask permission to distribute it all under GPLv3+ or all conflicting licenses under a version of LGPL. As well, I agree, I should have a look through the source and remove all unnecessary files in order to simplify things, including a custom spin of the source. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-30 20:35:56 CET --- (In reply to comment #4) If you look into http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control there's an example. I would just add something like # zip --exclude \*.svn -r %{source} pcsxr By whom? Packaging people? Upstream? From packaging point of view I think patching is a perfectly sane thing to do, besides COPYING. But this is anyway a minor issue; it's just a little easier to handle rpmlint w/o 33 errors :) Then send them the patch, it might speed up things. It's the AboutDlg key, containing the complete license, with wrong address (ZIP). No apologies, were just trying to make a job together. Deal? [cut] -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-30 20:52:47 CET --- Licenses: Since the bulk of the code is GPLv2+, you don't need a upstream permission to distribute the complete package under GPLv3, I guess. But the question is if the other licenses are GPL3-compatible... -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #10 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-31 02:34:43 CET --- (In reply to comment #1) I'm sure I saw something about this somewhere, as I read it a while ago but I found it after a quick search; according to fedora's guidelines, it's unnecessary: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache Also I looked all the way through the source code and after removing the win32 and macosx source, I only -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #12 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-31 03:03:30 CET --- I have updated the package with the suggested changes, but the FSF ADDRESS issue still exists, I will report it upstream. If I don't get a response or they don't plan to fix it, I will implement the a patch in this package. SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr.spec SPRM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr-1.9.92-1.20120128svn.fc16.src.rpmi -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #14 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-31 11:40:30 CET --- The commments on how to retrieve the source: since the License tag (and related conflicts) only applies to the binary RPM:s, I think you should move the code cleanup to the %prep section. Something like %prep %setup -q chmod 755 plugins/dfinput/util.* rm -rf macosx win32 debian-upstream This way manual source generation becomes simpler, and when upstream releases a usable version which can be stated as a %source url it will "Just Work"(tm). The patch/not patch discussion: simple misunderstanding. You send report/patches upstream, and chooses to patch or not later. Agreed. We need the upstream reference before this is over. License breakdown: done in comments, which basically is fine. However, you miss some of the information in debian/copyright, notably the note on psemu_plugin_defs. Personally, I think I would have created a new file like LICENSES based on the debian stuff, but I guess either way is OK. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-02-08 21:53:32 CET --- Looks fine to me, without doing a complete review. Open issues are about comments: - Regression: the commands used to create the source are missing again. When you add them, make sure that remove the .svn directories from source; either by svn -export or by using --exclude in the tar command. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#version-control-inter... - The source situation is perhaps better explained by a commented, correct Source: line IMHO. If you want, I can make a more complete review. And I would be extremely happy if you could review "my" bug 2140 later, but there are updates pending for that right now. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #18 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-02-08 23:12:43 CET --- OK, misunderstood a little. I would do #The source can be downloaded here #http://pcsxr.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/changes/73976 Source: %{name}-73976.zip i. e., let the Source: match the realities. We wish it was something else, but this is how it is. I'll make a full review later. Let this remark wait until it's done to save some work :) -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #20 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-02-14 18:37:54 CET --- Sorry for delay, too much work, too little time... rpmlint: pcsxr.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: pcsxr-73976.zip pcsxr.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/games/psemu/libDFXVideo.so pcsxr.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/games/psemu/libGXVideo.so pcsxr.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/pcsxr-1.9.92/COPYING pcsxr-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsxr/plugins/gxvideo/draw.c [Repeated ~28 times] [OK] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines [OK] Spec file matches base package name. [E ] Spec has consistant macro usage. [OK] Meets Packaging Guidelines. [OK] License [OK] License field in spec matches [OK] License file included in package [OK] Spec in American English [OK] Spec is legible. [- ] Sources match upstream md5sum: NA, svn gives different sums for different checkouts. diff -r is OK. [OK] Package needs ExcludeArch [OK] BuildRequires correct [OK] Spec handles locales/find_lang [- ] Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. [OK] Package is code or permissible content. [- ] Doc subpackage needed/used. [OK ]Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. [OK] Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file [OK ]Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. [OK ] Package has no duplicate files in %files. [OK] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. [OK]Package owns all the directories it creates. [E ] No rpmlint output. - final provides and requires are sane: ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/pcsxr-debuginfo-1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15.i686.rpm pcsxr-debuginfo = 1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15 pcsxr-debuginfo(x86-32) = 1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15 = ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/pcsxr-1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15.i686.rpm libBladeSio1.so libDFCdrom.so libDFInput.so libDFNet.so libDFSound.so libDFXVideo.so libGXVideo.so libpeopsxgl.so pcsxr = 1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15 pcsxr(x86-32) = 1.9.92-3.20120128svn73976.fc15 = /bin/sh libGL.so.1 libSDL-1.2.so.0 libX11.so.6 libXext.so.6 libXtst.so.6 libXv.so.1 libXxf86vm.so.1 libatk-1.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libcairo.so.2 libcdio.so.12 libcdio.so.12(CDIO_12) libdl.so.2 libfontconfig.so.1 libfreetype.so.6 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libgio-2.0.so.0 libglade-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 SHOULD Items: [OK] Should build in mock. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3790345 (f17) [-] Should build on all supported archs Not tested [OK] Should function as described. Starts, the menus are functional, but no more tests. [OK] Should have sane scriptlets. [- ] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. [OK] Should have dist tag [OK] Should package latest version ISSUES 1 Rpmlint: The executable-stack warning is strange and requires at least an explanation. Emulator asm code? Other output can be ignored. 2 If possible, the note about issues w OpenGL 64-bit support should have a link to bugtracker or so, in order to know when it's solved. 3 The svn version is used in several places, better handled with a macro. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #22 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-19 06:52:28 CET --- (In reply to comment #20) I'm almost certain this is the case, but I will look into it to make sure. I've been looking for the report upstream but I'll be sure to include it. Good point, it would be useful indeed. (In reply to comment #21) Yeah I guess I didn't think that through, to be honest it's straightforward enough that I think it's fairly redundant to even have the reference in there. On a side note, I got an email from a dev, the FSF issue should be fixed in the latest svn, so I'll post a new package when I have some time. (In reply to comment #20) Yeah I know what you mean; I've been horribly busy, so I haven't had time to review any of you're packages yet. I'll be sure to review it this week though. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #24 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-19 18:30:47 CET --- (In reply to comment #23) Actually I'm a little confused as of why I put that note in there in the first place, as the copyright file is a little inapplicable. It's mostly for debian purposes, a rehash of the AUTHORS file, and to help clear up the confusion of why psemu_plugin_defs.h is public domain despite it's licensing header. It seems that the pcsxr team removed this header a long time ago, so adding the copyright file may make things even more confusion haha. Anyway, I think it would be best just not to include any reference to this file, as the COPYING file, the AUTHORS file and the license breakdown in the spec provide all the useful information in a more applicable fashion. Anyway, here's the new spec and SRPM: SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr.spec SPRM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr-1.9.92-1.20120219svn75156.fc16.src... Notes: * All but 2 FSF-address warnings have been fixed, I have re-opened my bug report to let the dev's know that they missed these two files. * As well compiling natively and on mock, i686 and x86-64, does not give me the executable-stack warning what so ever, so I can't say what is causing this. I would think it could be ASM as pcsxr does include a small amount of ASM code, but I don't even know what file is giving the error. * As for the opengl issue, it seems I was wrong about that. After doing some testing myself, the issue is only a minor resolution bug that occurs on both architectures. I have reported the bug upstream and enabled opengl on both arch's. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #26 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-19 20:50:18 CET --- Upstream seemed to have responded very quickly to my bug report for the FSF address issues, so I updated the spec to the latest SVN: SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr.spec SPRM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr-1.9.92-1.20120219svn75200.fc16.src... -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|30 | -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #29 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-23 21:58:23 CET --- That's great news, congrats! :) -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |4 -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 --- Comment #31 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-24 17:19:19 CET --- You forgot to assign yourself ;) But thanks! Much appreciated, I'm still waiting on your request, but feel free send me an email if you need a review in the future :) -- 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- 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.