https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2098 --- Comment #1 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2011-12-18 19:41:36 CET --- I also forgot the source RPM warnings: Gamecube is not in dictionary: dolphin-emu.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gamecube -> Game cube, Game-cube, Gamecock I didn't think this mattered: dolphin-emu.src:40: W: setup-not-quiet -- 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=2098 Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |belegdol(a)gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; 2011-12-19 11:48:30 CET --- I cannot sponsor you, but these are my initial comments: 1. Library requirements should be picked up automatically, not be explicit: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires 2. SFML and libsoil: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759057 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=759059 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries 3. I think it would be better to spin your own tarball from upstream git than to rely on other distributions. 4. There are some licensing issues with dolphin: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=535073#29 -- 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=2098 --- Comment #5 from Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; 2011-12-20 13:00:31 CET --- (In reply to comment #4) Normally everything should be picked up by RPM. So, unless it misses something, do not put it into Requires. In your case, at a first glance it seems like all your Requires can be dropped. Bring this to the rpmfusion-developers list to get an exception. I would say it is, but I have no casting vote on the matter. You don't even need an url. Put just the filename in the source0, and put the commands you used to spin it in the comments above. Again, bring this to the list please. Dolphin definitely needs to go to nonfree, but other than that I don't know what will be decided. -- 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=2098 --- Comment #7 from Julian Sikorski <belegdol(a)gmail.com&gt; 2011-12-20 17:37:18 CET --- Yes, exactly. -- 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=2098 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |musuruan(a)gmail.com Blocks| |2, 30 -- 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=2098 --- Comment #10 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-14 00:44:36 CET --- Thanks to Julian Sikorski, I was able to remake the SPEC to not bundle SFML and SOIL. Also thanks to the tips given by me by Andrea Musuruane, I managed to improve the SPEC greatly. Here's the links: SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/dolphin-emu.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/dolphin-emu-3.0-2.fc16.src.rpm Unfortunately one more issue still exists; when I change cmake to %cmake (line 55), the build fails just before it finishes (says 100%ish). I'll post the output of the build here for anyone who understands what went wrong, as it went right over my head. I also plan to ask a dev and do some research. Anyone who can help, it would be greatly appreciated. Also, as a side question for anyone who can help: should I change the license to "GPLv2 with Non-free dependency" or something along those lines, or is it fine as is? -- 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=2098 --- Comment #12 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-25 21:42:51 CET --- Just I contacted upstream about the FSF address issue, so there seems to be no further issues with my dolphin package to my knowledge. -- 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=2098 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|30 | -- 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=2098 --- Comment #15 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-02-21 11:32:11 CET --- More complete review. Hope this is not bad news :) --a [OK] Package meets naming guidelines [OK] Spec file matches base package name. [OK] Spec has consistent macro usage. [E ] Meets Packaging Guidelines. Bundled libraries, source URL not properly commented. [OK] License field OK [E ] License field in spec matches source Some files are BSD [OK] License file included in package [OK] Spec in American English [OK] Spec is legible. [? ] Sources match upstream md5sum: Can't build tarball from upstream, missing input in comment. md5sum of tarball in srpm: 0b5f8cde0295d0742547010472854eaa [? ] Package needs ExcludeArch Possibly just x86 due to SSE2 requirement. [E ] BuildRequires correct Koji builds fails on F16-F17 due to BR. [OK] Spec handles locales/find_lang [NA] Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. [OK] Package has no %defattr or permissions. [OK] Package has a no %clean section. [OK] Package has no buildroot [OK] Package is code or permissible content. [NA] Doc subpackage needed/used. [OK] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. [OK] Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file [OK] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. f15/i386 [OK] Package has no duplicate files in %files. [OK] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. [OK] Package owns all the directories it creates. [OK] No rpmlint output. Output below. It can be ignored besides the Source URL warning, iff upstream has a report about the bad FSF addresses. [OK] final provides and requires are sane: See below SHOULD Items: [E ] Should build in mock. f16,f17 fails in koji. [? ] Should build on all supported archs Not tested [OK] Should function as described. Starts, menus seems to work. Not much of a test. [OK] Should have sane scriptlets. [NA] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. [OK] Should have dist tag [OK] Should package latest version [NA] check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Bundles bochs/disasm in Externals http://bochs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/lxr/source/disasm. 2. Bundles clrun, from clunix in Externals http://www.cmap.polytechnique.fr/~sylvain/clunix. 3. Source/Core/Core/Src/IPC_HLE contains the kernel headers hci.h and l2cap.h, which seems like a bad bundling. 4. From README, dolphin-emu needs SSE2 support. Does this rule out non-x86 architectures, which needs to be excluded? 5. Source URL is not completely commented on how to generate tarball. Why don't you just use upstream tarball as-is, add the add-on files as SourceX: and removes Externals/misc in %prep? This is more transparent and makes source verification simple. 6. A number of files have BSD licenses. Shouldn't these be part of License tag like in "GPLv2 and BSD" or similar? 7. Koji build fails on F16/F17, bad BR. 8. No review remark as such, but the install icons part is a little messy, could possibly be rewritten like: for size in 16 32 48 128 256; do dim="${size}x${size}" install -p -D -m 0644 %{name}$size.png \ %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/$dim/apps/%{name}.png done Similarly, the %files section icons could be written: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.png However, this boils down to personal preferences. Rpmlint: [leamas] $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/dolphin-emu-3.0-4.fc15.i686.rpm ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/dolphin-emu-debuginfo-3.0-4.fc15.i686.rpm dolphin-emu ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/dolphin-emu.spec | uniq dolphin-emu.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gamecube -> Game cube, Game-cube, Gamecock dolphin-emu.i686: E: zero-length /usr/share/dolphin-emu/user/GameConfig/WBEEJV.ini dolphin-emu.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dolphin-emu ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/dolphin-emu.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: dolphin-emu-3.0.tar.gz dolphin-emu-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/dolphin-emu-3.0/Source/Core/Core/Src/DSP/DSPHWInterface.cpp [repeated 11 times] 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 5 warnings Final Requires/Provides: dolphin-emu-3.0-4.fc15.i686.rpm dolphin-emu = 3.0-4.fc15 dolphin-emu(x86-32) = 3.0-4.fc15 = /bin/sh libCg.so libCgGL.so libGL.so.1 libGLEW.so.1.5 libGLU.so.1 libICE.so.6 libSDL-1.2.so.0 libSM.so.6 libSOIL.so.1 libX11.so.6 libXext.so.6 libXrandr.so.2 libao.so.4 libasound.so.2 libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4) libatk-1.0.so.0 libavcodec.so.52 libavcodec.so.52(LIBAVCODEC_52) libavformat.so.52 libavformat.so.52(LIBAVFORMAT_52) libavutil.so.50 libavutil.so.50(LIBAVUTIL_50) libbluetooth.so.3 libcairo.so.2 libdl.so.2 libfreetype.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgomp.so.1 libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 liblzo2.so.2 libopenal.so.1 libpango-1.0.so.0 libportaudio.so.2 libpulse.so.0 libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0) libsfml-network.so.1.6 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libswscale.so.0 libswscale.so.0(LIBSWSCALE_0) libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0 libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8.9) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_core-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libz.so.1 dolphin-emu-debuginfo-3.0-4.fc15.i686.rpm dolphin-emu-debuginfo = 3.0-4.fc15 dolphin-emu-debuginfo(x86-32) = 3.0-4.fc15 = -- 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=2098 --- Comment #17 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-21 18:13:18 CET --- (In reply to comment #14) These aren't building on koji because Dolphin requires Cg from RPMFusion non-free; it's failing because it can't find this package, not because it's not building. -- 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=2098 --- Comment #19 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-02-21 20:11:43 CET --- (In reply to comment #17) Idiot! Talking of me. -- 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=2098 --- Comment #21 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-02-21 20:33:39 CET --- Let's forget this sad koji story... Talking to upstream is of course never wrong. In the meantime, can't you just remove these and replace with symlinks to system headers in %prep? [cut] I would interpret Julians "spin" differently, but I'm Swede, you know... In the word "spin" I would understand a git clone at a given state, without adding anything I didn't get from the git repo. Those things (desktop, icons) still are handled better separately, perhaps in a small tar archive (Source1:) which is unpacked in %prep. But of course it's a possible way to mix it in a source combo. But you then need to document it, and that can be messy. One way is to write a script which creates the combo, and adding that script to the srpm. Then the comment could be straight-forward. Git is no problem at all. But you need to show to complete sequence of commands leading up to the tarball. Usually something like git clone whatever cd whatever; git reset --hard commit; cd .. tar czf whatever.tar.gz --exclude=.git whatever but obviously something else in your case, The overall requirement on the source comment is that you should be able to create you own source from upstream using 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=2098 --- Comment #23 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-02-21 20:55:23 CET --- (In reply to comment #22) I got the message... It was a mistake, probably caused by inexperience combined with switching between RH and RPMFusion too rapidly, too many things in the air. I am sorry, really. -- 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=2098 --- Comment #25 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-21 21:38:00 CET --- (In reply to comment #24) Yeah fedorapeople.org has the same rules as the fedora repos. (In reply to comment #23) Haha, it's alright, it's quite alright, no harm done and nothing that couldn't have been fixed anyway. :) (In reply to comment #21) Fair enough, that makes sense; I'll include that in my next rev. I'll just use second source, as that probably makes the most amount of sense. Yeah I was going to try that first but I'm not sure if that will work to be honest. I think it may mess up the debug package but that is a bit of a blind guess lol. None the less, I'm going to report it upstream in hopes it gets fixed in the next stable version. -- 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=2098 --- Comment #27 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-24 00:58:20 CET --- (In reply to comment #26) Though I thank you for the script, after running this, I can't confirm any bundled headers. In fact all the headers that came up were false positives including those Bluetooth files. Not only were they not equivalent code, but also were dolphin specific and had two sets of different licenses, copyrights and authors. At the moment, if I am not mistaken, I don't see any bundled libraries besides those listed in Externals. I'll have to look into packaging these libraries or getting an exception for Dolphin, as I have yet to look into what these libraries are. (In reply to comment #16) It seems that in hunting for those BSD licensed files, I found some OpenSSL licensed files and IIRC, OpenSSL conflicts with GPL. Depending on how the code works, this may be a big problem; I'll have to contact upstream about this. -- 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=2098 --- Comment #29 from Xiao-Long Chen <chillermillerlong(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-24 08:43:43 CET --- By the way, the licenses of the Dolphin source code are identified in Glenn Rice's Ubuntu packaging file, debian/copyright, which is in the *.debian.tar.gz files in the Dolphin PPA: http://ppa.launchpad.net/glennric/dolphin-emu/ubuntu/pool/main/d/dolphin-... -- 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=2098 --- Comment #31 from Xiao-Long Chen <chillermillerlong(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-24 18:32:18 CET --- The WBEEJV.ini was just removed in git 53 minutes ago :) I've added a line to my spec file to remove 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=2098 --- Comment #33 from Xiao-Long Chen <chillermillerlong(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-28 22:24:46 CET --- bochs is already packaged in Fedora, but it's not compiled with '--enable-disasm'. I've filed a bug about thie: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798437 :D -- 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=2098 --- Comment #35 from Xiao-Long Chen <chillermillerlong(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-29 00:55:13 CET --- Okay, I think we'll need to make an exception for disasm. The bochs build system compiles disasm statically and doesn't install the header files, which means that the Fedora packagers will need to hack the build system to compile a shared .so library (and deal with versioning, etc). Then, the header files will need to be manually installed in the spec. I think it would be far easier to use the included disasm library. -- 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=2098 --- Comment #37 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-29 06:24:16 CET --- (In reply to comment #35) I would need to take a look into it myself and perhaps talk with the bochs maintainer, but it does sound like an exception may have to be made in this case. Depending on the maintainer, he maybe up for manually packaging the headers and whatnot, who knows. Furthermore, he could have some tips/tricks, and it maybe worth it to talk to him. (In reply to comment #36) Splendid, thanks for your help! I'll have to look into it when I have a little more time on my hands to generate patches and a spec. I'm very busy at the moment, so I'm not sure how long it will take me, but feel free to help out if you're interested :) -- 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=2098 --- Comment #39 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-29 16:33:18 CET --- (In reply to comment #38) In regards to bochs? -- 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=2098 --- Comment #41 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-03-10 21:49:34 CET --- I talked with one of the maintainers for bochs and he said he's willing to looking into making a devel package for bochs. I managed to compile it with a handful of symlinks of the upstream bochs source code, but I think I'll take advantage of the bundling exception for the time being. Off to look into packaging CLrun :) -- 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=2098 --- Comment #43 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-03-12 18:09:06 CET --- (In reply to comment #42) It's quite alright, I should probably should have checked for that too ;) -- 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=2098 --- Comment #45 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-04-05 08:16:51 CEST --- Richard is the cmake guru here, it seems. In one of the rpmfusion bugs (lost which one) you can find: I can help there. It looks like lib3ds-devel provides a pkgconf config file so something like this should work: INCLUDE(FindPkgConfig) IF(USE_EXTERNAL_LIB3DS) # The last argument may need to be lib3ds depending on the pkgconf config. PKG_CHECK_MODULES(LIB3DS REQUIRED 3ds) INCLUDE_DIRECTORIES(SYSTEM ${LIB3DS_INCLUDE_DIRS}) ENDIF() --- And then the following: TARGET_LINK_LIBRARIES(Exchange3DS TKernel TKBRep TKMath TKMesh TKV3d TKTopAlgo 3ds) would become: TARGET_LINK_LIBRARIES(Exchange3DS TKernel TKBRep TKMath TKMesh TKV3d TKTopAlgo ${LIB3DS_LIBRARIES}) --- Also, if you use the "option" as shown above you'll need to add that to you cmake options: %cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo \ -DUSE_EXTERNAL_LIB3DS=TRUE \ -- 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=2098 --- Comment #47 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-04-05 15:29:31 CEST --- i. e., s/the cmake guru/a cmake guru/ :) -- 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=2098 --- Comment #49 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-04-05 18:58:35 CEST --- Ok, maybe I'm missing something but in the main CMakeLists.txt file I see: --- start --- if(${CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME} MATCHES "Darwin") find_library(CL OpenCL) set(CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS "${CMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS} -Wl,-weak_framework,OpenCL") else() include_directories(Externals/CLRun/include) add_subdirectory(Externals/CLRun) endif() --- end --- This leads me to believe CLRun is only needed on OSX/Darwin unless it's referenced somewhere else but I did a recursive grep for it and didn't find any other instance. Did I miss something? One good test would be to rm -rf Externals/CLRun in %prep and see if the build succeseeds since bundled libraries need to be removed anyway per the guidelines. -- 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=2098 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=810059 -- 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=2098 --- Comment #52 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-04-06 06:04:44 CEST --- (In reply to comment #51) Wow thanks a lot, that really helped! I'll know what to do next time too. None the less, I'll send the patch upstream right away! Haha, you're a miracle worker Richard ;) And with that, dolphin is officially bundled library free :) Here's the new files: SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/dolphin-emu.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/dolphin-emu-3.0-8.fc16.src.rpm Note this requires bochs-devel but it is only available in Fedora 17, though it can be easily rebuilt (that's how I got my build to work on F16). Also of course opencl-utils is still in 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2098 --- Comment #54 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-04-06 07:42:09 CEST --- (In reply to comment #53) No problem, not a bit issue. Since this doesn't effect the way I pulled my source0, there's no need to bump a rev. I reloaded the new SRPM to the same link :) -- 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=2098 --- Comment #56 from Xiao-Long Chen <chillermillerlong(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-06-03 02:50:20 CEST --- Because of the new version of GCC in Fedora 17, dolphin-emu no longer builds. I've created a simple patch that fixes this issue (it doesn't affect previous Fedora releases). Here's the spec and SRPM: http://ompldr.org/vZTJlMw/dolphin-emu.spec http://ompldr.org/vZTJlNA/dolphin-emu-3.0-9.fc17.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=2098 --- Comment #58 from Xiao-Long Chen <chillermillerlong(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-06-25 08:44:50 CEST --- No problem :) The patch is already committed upstream (although I think the commit was to fix another 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. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2098 --- Comment #60 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-06-25 16:36:46 CEST --- (In reply to comment #58) Thanks, I'll make note of it in the spec (In reply to comment #59) Good eye, thanks! Here's an updated spec; I'm just waiting on a SCM request for CLRun to unblock this. Note that I changed the package name of CLRun, so to install, one would have to uninstall open-utils-CLRun in favour for the new package to avoid a file conflict. SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/dolphin-emu.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/dolphin-emu-3.0-10.fc17.src.rpm Current RPMLINT Ouput: dolphin-emu.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gamecube -> Game cube, Game-cube, Gamecock dolphin-emu.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gamecube -> Game cube, Game-cube, Gamecock dolphin-emu.src: W: invalid-url Source1: dolphin-emu-extra.tar.xz dolphin-emu.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dolphin-emu-3.0.tar.xz dolphin-emu-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/dolphin-emu-3.0/Source/Core/Core/Src/DSP/DSPHWInterface.cpp ... dolphin-emu-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/dolphin-emu-3.0/Source/Core/Core/Src/DSP/DSPIntExtOps.h 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 4 warnings. The FSF Address issue has been fixed in the unstable version, the invalid-url can be safely ignored due to the nature of the source files, and gamecube is obviously not in the dictionary. I'm just waiting to push this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810059 -- 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=2098 --- Comment #62 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-01 22:24:27 CEST --- I. e., the comment for Source0 is there, adding a dependency on Source1. But the comment for Source1 doesn't really work. -- 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=2098 --- Comment #64 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-07-03 11:38:55 CEST --- Hmm... odd, there must have been an glitch when I last pulled the source. I'll do a repull and reupload the SRPM when I get home later today. -- 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=2098 --- Comment #66 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-04 22:32:00 CEST --- (In reply to comment #65) Out of the top of my head, standard git retains modification times when checking out a commit, but resets them when checking out a tag. So this is as expected. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* UNKNOWN", "zlib/libpng GPL", "UNKNOWN", "BSD (3 clause) GPL", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* BSD", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GENERATED FILE", "GPL (unversioned/unknown version) GPL", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/mk/FedoraReview/src/dolphin-emu/licensecheck.txt [x]: The spec file handles locales properly. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. ===== SHOULD items ===== [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dolphin-emu-3.0-10.fc17.src.rpm dolphin-emu-debuginfo-3.0-10.fc17.i686.rpm dolphin-emu-3.0-10.fc17.i686.rpm dolphin-emu.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gamecube -> Game cube, Game-cube, Gamecock dolphin-emu.src: W: invalid-url Source1: dolphin-emu-extra.tar.xz dolphin-emu.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dolphin-emu-3.0.tar.xz dolphin-emu-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/dolphin-emu-3.0/Source/Core/Core/Src/DSP/DSPHWInterface.cpp [ another 12 incorrect-fsf-address removed ] dolphin-emu.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Gamecube -> Game cube, Game-cube, Gamecock 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dolphin-emu dolphin-emu-debuginfo dolphin-emu.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US dolphin-emu-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/dolphin-emu-3.0/Source/Core/Core/Src/DSP/DSPHWInterface.cpp [ another 12 incorrect-fsf-address removed ] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- dolphin-emu-debuginfo-3.0-10.fc17.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): dolphin-emu-3.0-10.fc17.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libCg.so libCgGL.so libGL.so.1 libGLEW.so.1.6 libGLU.so.1 libSDL-1.2.so.0 libSOIL.so.1 libX11.so.6 libXext.so.6 libXrandr.so.2 libao.so.4 libao.so.4(LIBAO4_1.1.0) libasound.so.2 libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9.0rc4) libatk-1.0.so.0 libavcodec.so.53 libavcodec.so.53(LIBAVCODEC_53) libavformat.so.53 libavformat.so.53(LIBAVFORMAT_53) libavutil.so.51 libavutil.so.51(LIBAVUTIL_51) libbluetooth.so.3 libc.so.6 libcairo.so.2 libclrun.so.0.16 libfreetype.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgomp.so.1 libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0) libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 liblzo2.so.2 libm.so.6 libopenal.so.1 libpango-1.0.so.0 libportaudio.so.2 libpthread.so.0 libpulse.so.0 libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0) libsfml-network.so.1.6 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libswscale.so.2 libswscale.so.2(LIBSWSCALE_2) libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0 libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libwx_gtk2u_aui-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8.9) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.8.so.0 libwx_gtk2u_core-2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8) libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- dolphin-emu-debuginfo-3.0-10.fc17.i686.rpm: dolphin-emu-debuginfo = 3.0-10.fc17 dolphin-emu-debuginfo(x86-32) = 3.0-10.fc17 dolphin-emu-3.0-10.fc17.i686.rpm: dolphin-emu = 3.0-10.fc17 dolphin-emu(x86-32) = 3.0-10.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- Using local file /home/mk/FedoraReview/src/dolphin-emu-3.0.tar.xz as upstream /home/mk/FedoraReview/src/dolphin-emu-3.0.tar.xz : MD5SUM this package : 6fb4c50ddb22cd6413b24ac76bd2735f MD5SUM upstream package : 7cda1c13c6f80d3b4b7f44c17df27a6c However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git (0be4d03) last change: 2012-07-03 Applied tests: Generic C/C++ Command line :./fedora-review -u https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2098 -m fedora-17-i386-rpmfusion_nonfree External plugins: -- 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=2098 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #68 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-07-04 22:35:30 CEST --- A little late, but I should assign it as well ;) -- 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=2098 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #70 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-07-05 08:34:50 CEST --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: dolphin-emu Short Description: Gamecube / Wii / Triforce Emulator Owners: jem256 Branches: f17 devel InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: nonfree -- 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=2098 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #71 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-07-05 18:32:10 CEST --- Fixed in Fedora 17 Updates Testing. Note this has not been successfully built in Fedora 18 (aka devel), but I wouldn't declare it a breaking issue until F18 is released. -- 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=2098 --- Comment #73 from Xiao-Long Chen <chillermillerlong(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-12-11 22:05:54 CET --- Created attachment 1010 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=1010 Fedora 18 build 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.