7:56 a.m.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Bug #: 4155
Summary: Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of
the G.729 codec
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: manisandro(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/bcg729.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/bcg729-1.0.0-2.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
Not in Fedora because: "ITU G729 usage is governed by a patent license to be
acquired from Sipro Lab"
Rpmlint:
$ rpmlint bcg729-1.0.0-2.fc25.src.rpm
bcg729.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Opensource -> Open source,
Open-source, Outsource
bcg729.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes
bcg729.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opensource -> open source,
open-source, outsource
bcg729.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes
bcg729.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
$ rpmlint bcg729-1.0.0-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
bcg729.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Opensource -> Open source,
Open-source, Outsource
bcg729.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes
bcg729.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opensource -> open
source, open-source, outsource
bcg729.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code,
codes
bcg729.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
bcg729.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bcg729/COPYING
$ rpmlint bcg729-devel-1.0.0-2.fc25.x86_64.rpm
bcg729-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
bcg729-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
bcg729-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/bcg729/encoder.h
bcg729-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/bcg729/decoder.h
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 51 errors, 7 warnings.
The incorrect FSF address was reported upstream at [1]. Remaining issues are
non-issues.
[1] http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/linphone-developers/2016-07/index.html
This is my first RPM Fusion package, I'm already a Fedora sponsored packager
(FAS: smani)
--
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.
8:20 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |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.
9:49 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> 2016-07-28 11:49:31
CEST ---
I will review your package.
--
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.
10:21 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com
| |/show_bug.cgi?id=1358293
--- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> 2016-07-28 12:21:01
CEST ---
You can remove these useless BuildRequires, since this library doesn't seem to
depend on openssl (the openssl command is only needed for tests, and you don't
run them at package build):
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcrypto)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libssl)
--
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.
10:50 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dominik(a)greysector.net
--- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
2016-07-28 12:50:56 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
You can remove these useless BuildRequires, since this library
doesn't seem to
depend on openssl (the openssl command is only needed for tests, and you don't
run them at package build):
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcrypto)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libssl)
I'd advise enabling these tests instead of dropping the build dependencies.
--
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.
10:56 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #4 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> 2016-07-28 12:56:22
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I'd advise enabling these tests instead of dropping the build
dependencies.
That should be the best to do indeed. Unfortunately check tests
require online
resources (see also the original reviesw request for Fedora on RHBZ #1358293).
--
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.
11:17 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
2016-07-28 13:17:29 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'd advise enabling these tests instead of dropping the build dependencies.
That should be the best to do indeed. Unfortunately check tests require online
resources (see also the original reviesw request for Fedora on RHBZ #1358293).
You can add the test data as Source1: and extract it in the right place (test
subdir). The test script will detect it and skip downloading.
As for the failed checksum check, they probably forgot to update the checksum
in test/testCampaignAll when they updated the zip archive at
http://www.belledonne-communications.com/downloads/ . The latter is dated April
2016 and the former is from March 2015. It doesn't matter, though, as long as
you unpack the zip in the right place.
--
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.
11:38 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>
2016-07-28 13:38:38 CEST ---
Created attachment 1593
--> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1593
diff with proposed changes
Here's how you can enable tests without having the test script download test
data during make check. Also, the static library needs to be built and linked
to the test binaries because they use internal symbols, which are invisible due
to -fvisibility=hidden .
--
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.
11:42 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #7 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> 2016-07-28 13:42:55
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Created attachment 1593 [details]
diff with proposed changes
Here's how you can enable tests without having the test script download test
data during make check. Also, the static library needs to be built and linked
to the test binaries because they use internal symbols, which are invisible due
to -fvisibility=hidden .
Good catch, thanks for your contribution :)
By the way, a 1.0.1 version of bcg729 is available, also:
http://download-mirror.savannah.gnu.org/releases/linphone/plugins/sources...
--
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.
11:56 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #8 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> 2016-07-28 13:56:24 CEST ---
Thanks for your feedback!
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/bcg729.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/bcg729-1.0.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
%changelog
* Thu Jul 28 2016 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> - 1.0.1-1
- Update to 1.0.1
* Thu Jul 28 2016 Dominik Mierzejewski <rpm(a)greysector.net> - 1.0.0-3
- add test data, build (but don't install) static library and enable tests
--
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.
12:43 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #9 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> 2016-07-28 14:43:20
CEST ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
--> pkgconfig(libcrypto) and pkgconfig(libssl) are useless.
===== 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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 %license.
[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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[!]: 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.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
--> Already fixed upstream, see
https://github.com/BelledonneCommunications/bcg729/commit/78386ce
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: bcg729-1.0.1-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
bcg729-devel-1.0.1-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
bcg729-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
bcg729-1.0.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
bcg729.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Opensource -> Open source,
Open-source, Outsource
bcg729.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes
bcg729.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opensource -> open
source, open-source, outsource
bcg729.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code,
codes
bcg729.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
bcg729.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/bcg729/COPYING
bcg729-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
bcg729-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
bcg729-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/bcg729/decoder.h
bcg729-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/bcg729/encoder.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/gainQuantization.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/preProcessing.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/typedef.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/findOpenLoopPitchDelay.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/codebooks.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/LP2LSPConversion.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/computeLP.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/fixedCodebookSearch.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/decodeGains.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/decodeGains.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/computeWeightedSpeech.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/codebooks.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/interpolateqLSP.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/encoder.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/LPSynthesisFilter.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/qLSP2LP.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/preProcessing.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/LPSynthesisFilter.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/bcg729/encoder.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/computeAdaptativeCodebookGain.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/qLSP2LP.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/decoder.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/computeAdaptativeCodebookGain.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/gainQuantization.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/postProcessing.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/postFilter.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/computeWeightedSpeech.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/LSPQuantization.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/LSPQuantization.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/adaptativeCodebookSearch.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/decodeLSP.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/utils.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/adaptativeCodebookSearch.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/computeLP.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/decodeFixedCodeVector.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/decodeAdaptativeCodeVector.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/interpolateqLSP.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/decodeFixedCodeVector.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/decodeAdaptativeCodeVector.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/postFilter.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/decodeLSP.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/findOpenLoopPitchDelay.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/src/utils.c
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/LP2LSPConversion.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/fixedCodebookSearch.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/bcg729/decoder.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/postProcessing.h
bcg729-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/bcg729-1.0.1/include/g729FixedPointMath.h
bcg729.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Opensource -> Open source,
Open-source, Outsource
bcg729.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes
bcg729.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opensource -> open source,
open-source, outsource
bcg729.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code, codes
bcg729.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 51 errors, 12 warnings.
Requires
--------
bcg729 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/sbin/ldconfig
libc.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
bcg729-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/pkg-config
bcg729(x86-64)
libbcg729.so.0()(64bit)
bcg729-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides
--------
bcg729:
bcg729
bcg729(x86-64)
libbcg729.so.0()(64bit)
bcg729-devel:
bcg729-devel
bcg729-devel(x86-64)
pkgconfig(libbcg729)
bcg729-debuginfo:
bcg729-debuginfo
bcg729-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums
----------------
http://download-mirror.savannah.gnu.org/releases/linphone/plugins/sources...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
15f45abe2568b608984fe5f74aa8916d01a51cb26dcd559423d886d68ebe04ef
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
15f45abe2568b608984fe5f74aa8916d01a51cb26dcd559423d886d68ebe04ef
http://www.belledonne-communications.com/downloads/bcg729-patterns.zip :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
72fc90105526dc1916bea06dccb9ecb7aedc29a0e39eb33c8b4100d4145398f5
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
72fc90105526dc1916bea06dccb9ecb7aedc29a0e39eb33c8b4100d4145398f5
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
------------------------------
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: bcg729-1.0.1/configure.ac:12
Note: fixed upstream, see
https://github.com/BelledonneCommunications/bcg729/commit/78386ce
Since the test data are provided locally, no checksum is computed during make
check. As a result, openssl is not needed and even less its devel package (no
link on openssl). I will approve your package once the BuildRequires on
pkgconfig(libcrypto) and pkgconfig(libssl) are removed ;)
--
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.
12:49 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> 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.
You are the assignee for the bug.
8:31 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> 2016-07-28 22:31:18 CEST
---
Are you sure that the test data is redistributable? I see no license in the
ZIP.
--
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.
8:33 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #11 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> 2016-07-29 10:33:51 CEST
---
Good point, I'll ask upstream.
--
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.
1:57 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #12 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> 2016-08-02 15:57:00 CEST
---
Upstream reply:
"Most of it [bcg729-patterns.zip] was generated by us, but one part has been
generated from some ITU code files, which holds the following license:
Copyright (c) 1996,
AT&T, France Telecom, NTT, Universite de Sherbrooke
All rights reserved.
I cannot tell you for sure what is the exact license of this ZIP - if you can
skip it it would be better I guess."
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/bcg729.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/bcg729-1.0.1-3.fc26.src.rpm
%changelog
* Tue Aug 02 2016 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> - 1.0.1-3
- Remove %%check, testdata is not under a permissible license
* Thu Jul 28 2016 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> - 1.0.1-2
- Remove OpenSSL BRs
--
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.
2:30 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|3 |4
--- Comment #13 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> 2016-08-02
16:30:49 CEST ---
Thanks for your feedback. This package is APPROVED!
Notice that can re-add --disable-static to %configure and then remove the
"%exclude %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.a" line in %files, since checks are not run.
It's not mandatory anyway :)
--
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.
2:32 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #14 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> 2016-08-02 16:32:37 CEST
---
Ah missed that, I'll re-add the --disable-static. Thanks for the review!
--
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.
2:35 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #15 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> 2016-08-02 16:35:13 CEST
---
(Am I supposed to place the Package CVS request comment in this ticket or
should [1] work? Latter currently gives "discoveryfailure")
[1] https://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb/request/package/
--
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.
2:46 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #16 from Mohamed El Morabity <pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com> 2016-08-02
16:46:26 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
(Am I supposed to place the Package CVS request comment in this
ticket or
should [1] work? Latter currently gives "discoveryfailure")
[1] https://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb/request/package/
I suppose the CVS request
comment is still needed for the moment.
--
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.
2:56 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #17 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> 2016-08-02 16:56:33 CEST
---
Package CVS request
======================
Package Name: bcg729
Short Description: Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
Owners: smani
Branches: f23 f24 f25
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.
You are the assignee for the bug.
12:02 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> 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.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2:08 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> 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.
You are the assignee for the bug.
4:30 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the
G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> ---
This module was created but the package was never built
Can someone import the package and do the needed build ?
Thx
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
12:05 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the
G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #19 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> ---
Sorry this has fallen off my radar. I was waiting for the access rights to
propagate through the infrastructure, but I see now that the permission denied
issues were caused by me never having applied to be in packager group rather
than the permissions not propagating... Ups...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
5:08 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the
G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #20 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> ---
Actually I'm still unable to clone... Is it just a matter of patience or is
there something else I forgot to take care of?
$ rfpkg clone free/bcg729
Cloning into 'bcg729'...
Permission denied (publickey).
fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
Please make sure you have the correct access rights
and the repository exists.
Could not execute clone: Command '['git', 'clone',
'ssh://smani@pkgs.rpmfusion.org/free/bcg729', '--origin',
'origin']' returned
non-zero exit status 128
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
5:32 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the
G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #21 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #20)
Actually I'm still unable to clone... Is it just a matter of
patience or is
there something else I forgot to take care of?
I've forced the account creation
on pkgs.rpmfusion.org, it should be okay.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
5:32 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the
G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
--- Comment #22 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> ---
Works now, thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
6:14 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 4155] Review Request: bcg729 - Opensource implementation of the
G.729 codec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4155
Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #23 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> ---
Built: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=69453
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2669
days inactive
2832
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
27 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
RPM Fusion Bugzilla