https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2366 --- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com&gt; 2012-07-01 11:34:19 CEST --- Just for reference, the original mythtv review was at Bug 27. Package Review (generated by fedora-review 0.1.3) ============== 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. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. No %build section. [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 Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. Bundles a couple Javascript libs, but Javascript is exempt from Fedora's bundled libs policies. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [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. [-]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [!]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. See rpmlint output. Some "775" directories need to be set to 755. [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 [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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. The license of this package is simpler than the main mythtv package; details at the bottom of my review. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generate 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. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint mythweb-0.25-1.fc18.src.rpm mythweb.src: W: no-%build-section mythweb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: MythTV-mythweb-v0.25-0-g1d056f7.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint mythweb-0.25-1.fc18.noarch.rpm mythweb.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/mythweb/skins/haze_dark/img 0775L (... snipped the hundred "non-standard-dir-perm errors" identical to above ...) mythweb.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/mythweb/modules/music/mp3act_main.php mythweb.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/mythweb/includes/mobile.php mythweb.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/mythweb/modules/coverart/handler.pl 0644L /usr/bin/perl mythweb.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/mythweb/skins/default/video.css 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 106 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Package source is generated by developer. MythTV-mythweb-v0.25-0-g1d056f7.tar.gz: 370bf39a67c1d405d455e4ff74180cba [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. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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 (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0: MythTV-mythweb-v%{version}-0-%{githash3}.tar.gz (MythTV- mythweb-v%{version}-0-%{githash3}.tar.gz) Source1: mythweb.conf (mythweb.conf) Patch1: mythweb-fixes.patch (mythweb-fixes.patch) fedora-review caught this, but it doesn't really matter to me. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. ==== Summary ==== Must: Please add a %build section. Interestingly your spec crashed fedora-review :) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/836772 Must: Please fix the directory permissions. Something like this should do the trick: find . -type d -print0 | xargs -0 chmod 755 Must: Please adjust the licensing, since it differs slightly from the main MythTV package. From what I see it is just "GPLv2 and LGPLv2 and MIT". Nice-to-have items, that do not block approval, in order of preference: You may want to put a note in the comments on how to generate mythweb-fixes.patch. I imagine it's just a "git diff TAG1..TAG2" thing? I'm not sure mythtv-backend is a strict requirement, since technically the web interface could run on a separate box from the backend server. Same for the Requires: mysql-server. Maybe add a note in the comments to give a hint for what "githash3" and "githash4" are. Also, now that the package is split, can these variables be renamed to "githash1" and "githash2"? This is just a minor style thing, but httpd 1.3 is very ancient. It would be cleaner to remove the specific httpd version number and say "Require: httpd". If you want to silence the non-executable-script warning, you can use sed in %prep: sed -i modules/coverart/handler.pl -e '/\/usr\/bin\/perl/d' Thank you for already submitting the FSF address corrections upstream at http://code.mythtv.org/trac/ticket/10617. -- 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=2366 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |3 -- 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=2366 --- Comment #5 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-02 00:36:35 CEST --- (In reply to comment #4) Interesting rpmlint shows it as a warning and not an error when it "feels" so strongly about the problem :) -- 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=2366 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-02 13:38:23 CEST --- (In reply to comment #0) ... I'm not sure to catch why this would be a separate package at all ? - Does mythtv upstream plan to remove mythweb from the upstream git sources ? - Why only an EL-6 branch got requested ? (This defeat the purpose of a Long Term release since this will bypass any development process from the packaging side). To my foreign eyes, it's not because mythweb development process appears first in a separate github branch that the matching version won't be copied appropriatly to the related mythtv release. -- 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=2366 --- Comment #9 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-02 14:51:22 CEST --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: mythweb Short Description: The web interface to MythTV Owners: hobbes1069(a)gmail.com ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com Branches: F-16 F-17 EL-6 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: free -- 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=2366 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.rpmfusion. | |org/show_bug.cgi?id=2326 --- Comment #11 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-03 20:21:40 CEST --- Is there anything stopping this from completing now or are there additional questions or concerns? See the new "See Also" bug for additional rational. -- 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=2366 --- Comment #13 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-03 20:47:25 CEST --- (In reply to comment #12) No Yes, although in a separate repository, as previously mentioned. Not sure what you mean here, but it seemed unnecessary to force people to update their mythweb packages because of an update in mythtv when there were no changes in the mythweb repository. The development is already disconnected... In either case of globing this into the mythtv package or releasing separately will not cause *or* prevent this from occurring. Mythweb is, as far as I know, not dependent on a particular database schema as it uses the php bindings to communicate with the backend. I always check the git log of both prior to pushing an update. I was wondering about that. I assume this was not always the case? I noticed a number of comments Jarod left if the spec saying he wished he could mark them as noarch but did not say why he couldn't. -- 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=2366 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | --- Comment #15 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-04 22:58:15 CEST --- (In reply to comment #13) .. OK since upstream already use a separate repository, but I hope mythweb will make releases also. CVS done -- 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=2366 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #17 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-09 17:12:04 CEST --- Since mythweb packages are in the testing repositories, I'm going to call this done. Thanks! -- 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.