http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #1 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2008-02-29 15:05:50 --- I request some assistance with improving the package: 1. Since I'm using a post release svn checkout, and the inbuilt ffmpeg is not being used {ie linking against ffmpeg bits instead}, should I rm -Rf ffmpeg.src before .tar.bz up the source ? This would make the source a lot smaller ! 2. I have ended up with the i386 binary including two copies of the %doc files. If I comment that line out - then I get no doc files at all ! Why ? 3. Building the spec into .src.rpm and .i386.rpm was done on a 386 guest virtual machine on fedora-development {up2date 2008-02-08}. A spec I initially looked at from packman suggested adjustments are needed for x86_64. Can some one confirm build works on that and on ppc archs ? 4. While debuginfo is built, installing the -debuginfo rpm, gdb dvcut and run shows messages indicating debuginfo can't be found. I had a look through: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo Did my failed gdb test achiev it's purpose ? Do I need to either fix or remove the debuginfo config ? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #3 from dexter <dex.mbox(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-02-29 18:50:33 --- Created an attachment (id=4) --> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=4) dvbcut.dex.spec -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 Sebastian Vahl <fedora(a)deadbabylon.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora(a)deadbabylon.de --- Comment #5 from Sebastian Vahl <fedora(a)deadbabylon.de&gt; 2008-03-10 21:39:05 --- (In reply to comment #4) You are using desktop-file-install in %install so desktop-file-utils is required. Without it the command maybe not available (or is not available if you are using mock) and the build would fail. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #7 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2008-06-21 04:47:03 --- Updated spec: http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut.spec srpm: http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut-0.5.4-0.7.20080621svn13... An F9 i386 build is available at: http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut-0.5.4-0.7.20080621svn13... Picks up latest changes to the svn source code. Any thing left for me to take care of with this package ? I would be needing a reviewer and sponsor since this is my first rpmfusion package. For some previous packaging work, see: - fedora glglobe {first package}: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249992 - fedora pyvnc2swf {under review}: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448201 - reviewing python storm {db library} https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430429 Dex: is there anything from your spec that you think should make it into this ? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #9 from dexter <dex.mbox(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-06-24 15:28:59 --- Just a slight addition, a name change for qt between f8 & f9 qt in f9 is == qt4 in f8 hence somthing like this should do the trick: %if 0%{fedora} > 8 Buildrequires qt3-devel %else Buildrequires qt-devel %endif will ensure it builds against qt3 for current releases, remove when f8 eol. I'll try a build and install later and get back. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #11 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2008-06-25 23:54:42 --- (In reply to comment #10) http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut-0.5.4-0.8.20080621svn13... -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |musuruan(a)gmail.com --- Comment #13 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-07-12 18:21:28 --- (In reply to comment #12) Try to swap this review contacting other sponsored packager with pending reviews in RPM Fusion Bugzilla. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #15 from Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com&gt; 2008-12-15 17:56:38 --- (In reply to comment #14) this would not be required if the package would own that directory ... ;-) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #17 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2008-12-16 14:28:57 --- (In reply to comment #14) Interesting since I have done most of my dev on F8, then F9 i386. Shall do. Latest release is 18 months old. As I found bugs, or patches (eg gcc43 warns), include path changes I was submitting them, and they were being accepted or alternate fixes incorporated. One item was to do with paths and file names, but it's all fading from memory now. I have been using the program as packaged since building it (on F9, i386). If you think it reasonable, I'll make the adjustments you suggest in the second half of your notes, leaving it at the same svn revision. Then I'll update to latest svn. {note that the author(s) made a little noise about a release about 6 months ago, but nothing has been forthcoming, there hasn't been much svn activity either. Third thing and separately, I'll change to building with make, autoconf etc. This was introduced into svn about june when various users of the package kept having trouble getting it to build with SCons (along with me). So this will be quite a change to the spec. The other thing that's happening is rawhide will soon get a new ffmpeg apparently, which will probably bust thing up ... If you were to do full review, would you want to see the intermediate steps, or just the final converted to be current svn + autotool build changes ? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #19 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-16 14:38:30 --- (In reply to comment #17) I'd like to see the final result. Because so many things (e.g. building system) will be different it make little sense in reviewing intermediate steps. Ping me for reviewing it :) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #21 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2008-12-21 03:50:49 --- updated spec: http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut.spec srpm: http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut-0.5.4-0.12.20081218.fc9... - fix generation of debuginfo - test rebuild against ffmpeg-libs-0.4.9-0.57.20081217.fc11 rpmlint: src and bin dvbcut.src:56: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --libdir=%{_libdir} --with-ffmpeg=%{_prefix} --with-ffmpeg-include=%{_includedir}/ffmpeg/ --prefix=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} dvbcut.src: W: strange-permission dvbcut-snapshot.sh 0775 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #23 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-21 16:10:41 --- I still cannot build on F10/x86_64. I get the following error when running configure: [...] checking for getpagesize... yes checking for working mmap... yes checking for main in -lqt-mt... no checking for main in -lqt... no configure: error: Qt library not found errore: Stato d'uscita errato da /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.vCa3lr (%build) Why aren't you using the configure macro? Doesn't "make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}" work? I really don't like calling ./configure in the build section. Desktop file install should not be installed with a vendor name. Release tag is not correct. Version 0.5.4 has already been release.. Your are using a pre-release scheme instead of a post release scheme. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Release -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #25 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-22 14:56:00 --- (In reply to comment #24) Yes, of course :) It certainly is a missing BR if you can build it. I don't have access to the the F10/x86_64 computer right now, but qt3-devel was installed. I had to install it otherwise rpmbuild refuses to start the build because qt3-devel is amongst BR. I'll later send you the output of "rpm -qa qt3\* |sort". Mmmm... I think you have to review how it works. It is clear you miss something. Try running this command from command line to see how the macro expands: $ rpm --eval %configure Thus you'll see that you don't have to pass --libdir=%{_libdir} because it is already passed by the macro. export CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" is already in the macro and not needed. I'll try to help you but I have to be able to fire a build :) I mean that ./configure or %configure should only be used in the %setup section. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #27 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-22 19:33:38 --- Problem is that both libqt and libqt-mt are not found. On my system I have libqt-mt but not the former with the BR you require. $ locate libqt /usr/lib64/qt-3.3/lib/libqt-mt.prl /usr/lib64/qt-3.3/lib/libqt-mt.so /usr/lib64/qt-3.3/lib/libqt-mt.so.3 /usr/lib64/qt-3.3/lib/libqt-mt.so.3.3 /usr/lib64/qt-3.3/lib/libqt-mt.so.3.3.8 [... other non qt stuff ...] -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #29 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2008-12-22 22:34:01 --- (In reply to comment #28) Thanks for the info. ===== checking a52dec/a52.h usability... yes checking a52dec/a52.h presence... yes checking for a52dec/a52.h... yes checking for an ANSI C-conforming const... yes checking for off_t... yes checking for size_t... yes checking for stdlib.h... (cached) yes checking for unistd.h... (cached) yes checking for getpagesize... yes checking for working mmap... yes checking for main in -lqt-mt... yes configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating makefile config.status: WARNING: makefile.in seems to ignore the --datarootdir setting config.status: creating src/Makefile config.status: WARNING: src/Makefile.in seems to ignore the --datarootdir setting + make -j3 make -C src all make[1]: Entering directory `/home/davidt/rpmb ===== Looks like x86_64 issue ? I'll try to mock and get a x86_64 going. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #31 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2008-12-26 07:03:48 --- (In reply to comment #30) OK, needed to force $QTDIR/lib onto the libpath. Now compiles OK on x86_64. I wonder if that will work for ppc/ppc64 as well. I couldn't find any examples of other qt3 using apps needing to do such trickery, nor improved configure.in examples to improve the existing configure.in. spec: http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut.spec srpm: http://members.iinet.net.au/~timmsy/dvbcut/dvbcut-0.5.4-3.20081218.fc9.sr... - fix x86_64 configure by supplying qt lib dir - add BR: autoconf to solve mock build issue - del repeated parameters from build due to change to configure macro -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #33 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-29 16:20:27 --- I've improved your spec file. It is attached to this bug report. Please, let me know what you think. Changelog: - removed ugly configure hack in %%install A much needed improvement. You must report upstream that there is no clean way to specify a DESTDIR. - removed %%{?_smp_mflags} from make invocation It was because of smp_flags that the rpmbuild process didn't run the setversion.sh script. - patched configure to fix qt lib dir I think it is much cleaner with sed. This patch must be reported upstream. - cosmetic changes -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #35 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-31 11:47:47 --- (In reply to comment #34) Well, no. Some makefiles are not meant to be run in parallel. Dvbcut makefile is one of those. That's why I removed the %%{?_smp_mflags} macro from make invocation. sed -i 's,-L$QTDIR/$mr_libdirname,-L$QTDIR/lib,' configure.in This just specifies that qt libraries are always under lib subdirectory in $QTDIR. The name of the directory doesn't change depending on arch, only $QTDIR changes depending on arch. As long as other distributions do the same, this is fine. What I wanted to tell you is that the problems found during this review must be reported upstream. If you provide an updated package with your latest changes, I'll review it. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 --- Comment #37 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-31 12:46:11 --- (In reply to comment #36) Not found. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |musuruan(a)gmail.com Blocks|2 |3 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #39 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2008-12-31 15:29:00 --- 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. Use an %{alphatag} beginning with the date in YYYYMMDD format (this is OK) and followed by up to 16 (ASCII) alphanumeric characters of your choosing (this is not OK). For example: 20081218svn. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages [+] 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. README.icons say that icons are under LGPLv2 Source files says licences is GPLv2+ Therefore licence must be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2, See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lice... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses_3 [+] 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. dvbcut-snapshot.sh doesn't seem to work. Maybe instructions are wrong or not detailed. I get cannot connect to server error. [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on F10/x86_64. [+] 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. In the %files section use either dvbcut or %{name} not both. [=] 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} [N] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on F10/x86_64 [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. Timestamps are not preserved using the original makefile. This should be patched. NEEDSWORK -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #41 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-02 14:03:15 --- (In reply to comment #40) I think you meant 0<=charscount<=16. The change you made is OK for me. You may want to use a macro to handle the svn revision. I think the Fedora guidelines are quite clear about this case: "If your package contains files which are under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses, then the spec must reflect this by using "and" as a separator." The change you made is OK. Yes, it was a temporary problem. I verified that the content of source archives matches the one created by the snapshot script. No. There is also the man entry, whose timestamp is not preserved. This is a SHOULD item and therefore it is not mandatory. Not found. I found dvbcut-0.5.4-6.20090101svn138.fc10.src.rpm thought. I reviewed this. APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | --- Comment #43 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-01-04 11:44:01 --- (In reply to comment #42) done -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.