https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3282 --- Comment #1 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net&gt; 2014-07-10 12:41:49 CEST --- rpmlint: x265-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/x265/COPYING ^ will notify upstream when sending patches x265-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ^ devel package with shared lib links, headers and docs, so false positive x265-devel.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/x265-devel/doc/uncrustify/drag-uncrustify.bat ^ this is a Windows batch file, but might be useful as it shows the command line to use with uncrustify x265.x86_64: W: no-documentation x265.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary x265 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. -- 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=3282 --- Comment #3 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; 2014-07-10 14:19:07 CEST --- About license, part of the sources are licensed under BSD 3 clause (source/Lib/TLibEncoder and source/Lib/TLibCommon). I believe what needs to be in the License tag is the license of the resulting binaries and that mixing GPLv2 with BSD results in GPLv2, but licensing has always been a bit weird to me, so I thought I'd mention it. -- 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=3282 MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mgansser(a)alice.de --- Comment #5 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2014-07-11 15:47:19 CEST --- a patch for arm architecture is available on: https://github.com/archlinuxarm/PKGBUILDs/blob/master/extra/x265/arm.patch -- 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=3282 --- Comment #7 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net&gt; 2014-07-14 10:43:24 CEST --- (In reply to comment #5) What exactly does it fix? -- 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=3282 --- Comment #9 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net&gt; 2014-07-14 18:54:31 CEST --- (In reply to comment #8) You haven't answered my question. What doesn't work without this patch? -- 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=3282 --- Comment #11 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; 2014-07-15 13:41:04 CEST --- The 'tr' usage to fix the end of lines of the .bat is incorrect : + tr -d '\r' doc/uncrustify/drag-uncrustify.bat tr: extra operand 'doc/uncrustify/drag-uncrustify.bat' It leads to the following rpmlint errors : x265-devel.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/x265-devel/uncrustify/drag-uncrustify.bat.unix x265-devel.i686: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/x265-devel/uncrustify/drag-uncrustify.bat It's probably easier to use sed : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-li... The package now builds on i686 at the price of the following rpmlint warning : x265.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch1: x265-test-shared.patch The following rpmlint warning probably also needs to be looked at : x265-libs.i686: E: shlib-with-non-pic-code /usr/lib/libx265.so.1.2 -- 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=3282 --- Comment #13 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net&gt; 2014-07-17 11:37:18 CEST --- (In reply to comment #11) That was a missing '<'. Fixed. Which is harmless. I added -fPIC to compilation flags on i686, but despite this, the warning is still there. Probably some of the assembly code is non-PIC on i686. I'll have to take this upstream. Spec URL: http://mokona.greysector.net/~rathann/rpmfusion/x265.spec SRPM URL: http://mokona.greysector.net/~rathann/rpmfusion/x265-1.2-3.fc20.src.rpm -- 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=3282 --- Comment #15 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net&gt; 2014-08-08 13:05:19 CEST --- (In reply to comment #14) Thanks for the patch, Xavier. Here's the updated srpm: Spec URL: http://mokona.greysector.net/~rathann/rpmfusion/x265.spec SRPM URL: http://mokona.greysector.net/~rathann/rpmfusion/x265-1.2-4.fc20.src.rpm -- 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=3282 --- Comment #17 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-08-15 20:21:35 CEST --- (In reply to comment #15) ... 403 forbidden for me I still hope the contributor agreement was removed, this is an arbitrary decision to add such document (Even the contributor agreement redistribution is questionable and you will likely requires to download the latest formulaire from the original website anyway, not any third part provider such our project or any downstream projects). -- 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=3282 --- Comment #19 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net&gt; 2014-08-18 00:12:02 CEST --- (In reply to comment #16) To allow -libs to carry the only copy and keep it installed in the expected place. Dir ownership fixed in 1.2-5. Done in 1.2-5. 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. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3282 --- Comment #21 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; 2014-08-18 23:59:32 CEST --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review-x265/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 368640 bytes in 16 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in x265-libs , x265-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: x265-1.2-5.fc20.x86_64.rpm x265-libs-1.2-5.fc20.x86_64.rpm x265-devel-1.2-5.fc20.x86_64.rpm x265-1.2-5.fc20.src.rpm x265.x86_64: W: no-documentation x265.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary x265 x265-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/x265/COPYING x265-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib x265.src: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch1: x265-test-shared.patch 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint x265 x265-devel x265-libs x265.x86_64: W: no-documentation x265.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary x265 x265-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib x265-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libx265.so.25 /lib64/librt.so.1 x265-libs.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libx265.so.25 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 x265-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/x265/COPYING 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- x265 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libx265.so.25()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) x265-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libx265.so.25()(64bit) x265-libs(x86-64) x265-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- x265: x265 x265(x86-64) x265-devel: pkgconfig(x265) x265-devel x265-devel(x86-64) x265-libs: libx265.so.25()(64bit) x265-libs x265-libs(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/get/1.2.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5f5ae7b9cf73b6ecaa1d169fd9f68f3efad75b0d23f504eeca92d57b3f0cb829 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5f5ae7b9cf73b6ecaa1d169fd9f68f3efad75b0d23f504eeca92d57b3f0cb829 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n x265 Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- 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=3282 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #23 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net&gt; 2014-08-30 17:18:08 CEST --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: x265 Short Description: H.265/HEVC encoder Owners: rathann Branches: f20 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=3282 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #24 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; 2014-12-18 16:48:23 CET --- This can be closed. -- 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.