http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dtimms(a)iinet.net.au --- Comment #1 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2008-12-02 13:54:23 --- Could you please set the Blocks bug#, add Review Request: to the subject, and provide the rpmlint output of the built .src.rpm and binary rpm as described in: http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|cmus - Ncurses-Based Music |Review Request: cmus - |Player |Ncurses-Based Music Player -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 --- Comment #4 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org&gt; 2008-12-15 23:40:15 --- (In reply to comment #3:) OK. Ah, that's a good idea :). I tried the above and got this in %doc, though: error: magic_file(ms, "/var/tmp/cmus-2.2.0-2.fc9-root-konrad/usr/share/doc/cmus-2.2.0/examples") failed: mode 040755 cannot open `/var/tmp/cmus-2.2.0-2.fc9-root-konrad/usr/share/doc/cmus-2.2.0/examples' (No such file or directory) rpmbuild: rpmfc.c:1386: rpmfcClassify: Assertion `ftype != ((void *)0)' failed. Aborted Because as of ffmpeg 0.4.9-0.48.20080908.fc9 this feature doesn't compile. I'm not familiar with .mod/.x3m, can you help me here? Each one is only a few kilobytes (5-15 kiB on x86_64 systems) so I'm inclined to say just leave them in the main package. OK. OK. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 --- Comment #6 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org&gt; 2008-12-16 12:41:31 --- OK, I have incorporated your suggestions into this set of spec/srpm: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/cmus.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/cmus-2.2.0-2.fc9.src.rpm -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2008-12-17 02:38:28 --- I don't see how this is a blocker nor why it warrants patching the makefile. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2008-12-17 09:44:00 --- I'd even say abuse of %{name} can be outright harmful, for example using it in the URL tag means you can't just paste the URL into a browser. And it usually makes no sense at all, how often is a package's name going to change? And if it is, usually it's for a compat package or something similar, where in most places you still want to use the original name, not the modified one. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 --- Comment #12 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org&gt; 2008-12-17 11:23:14 --- http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/cmus.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/cmus-2.2.0-3.fc9.src.rpm Sorry it took so long. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 --- Comment #14 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org&gt; 2008-12-17 11:44:05 --- Actually I didn't have to patch the makefile at all. Just passed V=2. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package- |musuruan(a)gmail.com |review(a)rpmfusion.org | Status|ASSIGNED |NEW -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #15 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-17 16:18:22 --- Here is the review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing, N:not applicable. MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output is clean [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [=] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. No problem because this is RPM Fusion. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] 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 must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 7a9895ecfc10cd16577c73051436962f cmus-2.2.0.tar.bz2 [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on F9/i386 [+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [N] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [N] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [N] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [=] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. This is not a problem since we are in RPM Fusion. [N] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [N] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [N] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [N] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [N] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [N] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [N] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [N] 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. [N] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [N] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [N] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [N] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [N] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [N] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [=] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Upstream makefile do not preserve timestamps. It SHOULD be patched. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps Package is APPROVED. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 --- Comment #17 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2008-12-17 23:29:39 --- I understood this pretty well, still I think looking at what CFLAGS are being passed in the specfile is usually sufficient. (Yes, there can be typos like CFALGS, but normally you notice them when reading the specfile. :-) ) But anyway, it turns out getting the output was trivial: so it's all set now. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 --- Comment #19 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2008-12-20 14:04:30 --- (In reply to comment #18) Sorry, I had (nearly) had missed this, as it wasn't blocking RF_CVSsync/Bug 33 (see http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors ) Ohh, and I hopefully assumed correctly that this package goes to the free repo? -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=165 --- Comment #21 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2008-12-22 22:23:51 --- They are. So free is the correct place. -- 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.