https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2, 30 --- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-14 12:18:49 CET --- I'm making this request in cooperation with Ilya Murav'jov, the author of the 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2012-01-14 19:21:08 CET --- This sounds interesting, if it works as advertised. Question of the day: Why is libmpeg2 bundled? -- 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=2140 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com --- Comment #5 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-23 16:43:02 CET --- (In reply to comment #4) I take that means can't be patched to use the shared lib? I'm a little confused on what you mean by that. -- 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=2140 --- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-24 16:22:21 CET --- Just to avoid unnecessary work: there is an updated spec file: spec: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bombono/files/tmp/20120121git2840c3a/bomb... srpm: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bombono/files/tmp/20120121git2840c3a/bomb... rpmlint: bombono-dvd.spec:17: W: macro-in-comment %{rel_tag} bombono-dvd.spec:18: W: macro-in-comment %{version} bombono-dvd.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: bombono-dvd-1.2.0.20120121git2840c3a.tar.gz All warnings related to the git source. I feel they can be discarded, and can expand on why if required. The basic difference is that upstream (i. e., Ilya) has accepted some patches which makes the spec file cleaner. With this said, the bundling issues seems most important to me. Would it be possible to get an exception for the libmpeg lib until it's removed in an upcoming release? Is my understanding that the boost-logging sources doesn't represent a bundled library since there is just header files correct? -- 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=2140 --- Comment #9 from Ilya Murav'jov <muravev(a)yandex.ru&gt; 2012-01-24 22:59:38 CET --- (In reply to comment #5) I mean it is now used only for internal tests, no code of the libmpeg2 in the final binary (bombono-dvd) is used now. -- 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=2140 --- Comment #11 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2012-01-24 23:23:46 CET --- It'd be nice to have boost-logging packaged separately (in Fedora) then. In principle, headers-only libraries are libraries too. (The eventual reviewer may or may not be willing to let that one pass.) FWIW, it looks like Boost upstream is now going with a different logging API called Boost.Log, I haven't checked what its merge status is, but it might make sense to eventually port the upstream code to the new API. -- 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=2140 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2012-01-24 23:35:49 CET --- I personally think using a maintained, quasi-standard (as part of Boost) API instead of an obsolete one (withdrawn by the author himself, who said it needs a rewrite, rewrite which never got done) should be a goal per se, in the interest of long-term maintainability of your project. (But of course that's not a review blocker, though it'd make it easier to package your code. The reason I'm taking this up with you is because you're 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #15 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-25 00:32:16 CET --- Now, since we all seem to agree upon that using boost-lib is the best long-term solution, the question is how to migrate. To use it today means that is should be packaged separately. I've looked into this, and in my eyes it doesn't look simple at all(?). Furthermore, such a package will conflict with the core boost distribution as soon as boost-log becomes part of it. Since boost-log passed the review in early 2010, this moment shouldn't be that far away. So: I suggest that we keep the current logging interface until boost-log is fully accepted into boost core, hopefully soon. -- 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=2140 --- Comment #17 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-25 20:04:59 CET --- (In reply to comment #16) Well the guidelines do say clearly that there is no bundle libraries period, unless you get an exception, as Kevin mentioned. If you do wish to let this pass, you will need to request an exception from the rpm-fusion dev's. -- 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=2140 --- Comment #19 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-01-25 23:04:10 CET --- I believe so, but please don't take my word as I'm not an official reviewer. You can leave a message on the dev's mailing list, as I'm sure someone will be able to give you a more reliable answer. As well, if you do end up requiring an exception, a dev on that list can also consult you on that too. You can find the mailing list here: http://lists.rpmfusion.org/mailman/listinfo/rpmfusion-developers Good luck on getting sponsored :) -- 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=2140 --- Comment #21 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-28 14:22:52 CET --- Two approvals, no objections and a few days of waiting... seems that we got out bundling exception (?). With that, all bundling issues should be fixed (second attempt) Jeremy: you were right, a header package is indeed covered by the definition. Updated spec: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bombono/files/tmp/20120128gitf39d5d5/bomb... srpm: http://sourceforge.net/projects/bombono/files/tmp/20120128gitf39d5d5/bomb... rmplint: One duplicated warning about the download url, which I think can be neglected. Now, I really need some help: - A review - A sponsor Anything I can do make this happen? -- 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=2140 --- Comment #23 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-29 11:11:16 CET --- Thanks for info. For the moment, I think I'll then wait until someone has the time to make a review, postponing the sponsor thing until the review is done. -- 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=2140 --- Comment #25 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-02-10 17:17:50 CET --- Reviewing my own work w fresh eyes, I have found another bundled library. It's kind of complicated, and I will ask for advice on mailing list. Until sorted out, this request is stalled. -- 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=2140 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|2 |3 --- Comment #27 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-02-19 18:46:18 CET --- Since RH 790628 is blocking this, I will review it as soon as it's resolved. -- 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=2140 --- Comment #28 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-20 12:46:06 CET --- RHBZ 790628 is now approved, and adobe-source-libraries will show up Fedora repos after the normal administrative delays. Thus, there's now nothing blocking this review AFAIK. However, we need a patch from upstream which makes use of the system libs instead of the bundled ones before this can be completed. I've sent a separate email to Ilya (are you listening?) to make sure he is updated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #30 from Ilya Murav'jov <muravev(a)yandex.ru&gt; 2012-03-28 16:08:16 CEST --- (In reply to comment #28) Hi, I've added the option USE_EXT_ASL=1 to the build system to use external adobe-source-libraries (in git, http://gitorious.org/bombono-dvd/bombono-dvd ). In this case binaries are being linked with -lasl_dev . -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #32 from Ilya Murav'jov <muravev(a)yandex.ru&gt; 2012-03-28 16:32:31 CEST --- (In reply to comment #31) No. If you build with USE_EXT_ASL=0 (which is the default) than no external ASL code is used (and libasl_dev.a is built). But if you use USE_EXT_ASL=1 the internal copy of ASL is not used and is not built. A note about building bombono with external ASL: the patch http://gitorious.org/bombono-dvd/bombono-dvd/blobs/master/libs/asl/no_con... is needed to build it successfully. I know, ASL is not developed that actively now so I don't communicate with upstream. This is one more reason to go away from ASL in the future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #34 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-28 21:57:21 CEST --- Compilation error :(, I presume the boost update to 1.47.0 is involved. Output at http://pastebin.com/UTr7rfL6 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #36 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-29 00:54:28 CEST --- New links: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/bombono-dvd/bombono-dvd.spec http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/bombono-dvd/bombono-dvd-1.2.0.20120329gi... To build, these requires adobe-source-libraries-devel-1.0.43-8. This only exists in updates-testing, the one available in updates is adobe-source-libraries-devel-1.0.43-7 which gives the compilation error in comment #34. To get this faster to updates, giving some karma at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/adobe-source-libraries-1.0.43-8.f... speed things up. Just add a "Works for me" comment. With this, I think we are ready to 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #38 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-03-31 00:25:51 CEST --- Alright! Lets get this review going: Package review: +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [?] rpmlint output I can't build it, see below [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [-] package meets the packaging guidelines =The group category should be removed, as it is no longer required. -%{?rel_tag} is not necessary, please remove it -Requires(post) and (postun) is not necessary, please remove it [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and Boost and Python and LGPLv2+ [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license file is included in %doc: [+] spec file is in American English [-] spec file is legible -Please add something along the lines of "##Commands to grab from git" above the commands to grab the source. [-] sources match upstream: md5sum do not matche -This is a blocking issue. Please make sure your source grab commands always grab the right source. I compared the md5sum of the source in you provided in the srpm and the the md5sum of the source that I grabbed with those commands. Also, tip for this package and or later on, using "--exclude-vcs" will ignore all vcs files, such as ".svn" or ".git" [-] package builds on at least one primary arch: I get these errors: src/mlib/sdk/asl_any_iter.h:6:34: fatal error: adobe/any_iterator.hpp: No such file or directory compilation terminated. Are you sure you fixed the ASL issue correctly [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [?] all build requirements in BuildRequires Shouldn't there also be ASL in the BuildRequires? [+] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries: One bundled library is included but this has an exception, so you are alright. [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [N] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [N] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text: Not checked [N] description and summary contains available translations: This is not required, so no need to do it unless you want to. [-] package builds in mock: does not build [-] package builds on all supported arches: does not build [-] package functions as described: does not build [N] sane scriptlets: Not checked [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [+] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts Unfortunately there's seems to be a few problems with the build. Let me know when you fix them so I can finish my 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #40 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-31 08:02:14 CEST --- (In reply to comment #38) Alright! I reply now to what I think might need a discussion, back later with new links (short of time). I have excluded remarks which don't need discussion. My understanding is that although Fedora ignores it, it's still wise to include it: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Recommended_values_for_the... release Sometimes, I try new territorites: my understanding is that including the release tag is possible and even desirable since it's¸more robust. My reasoning, based on the same link: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_pac... +This is a post-release +Version tags are either properly ordered or not. +The git tags like 20120329git1234567 are properly ordered thanks to the date prefix +In this case the link explicitly says that the git tag might go into the version (but without examples). +Or?! Hm... $ rpm -qf /usr/include/adobe/any_iterator.hpp adobe-source-libraries-devel-1.0.43-8.fc16.i686 Is there a dependency missing? Have you adobe-source-libraries-devel installed? Are you building in mock? -Requires(post) and (postun) is not necessary, please remove it To my understanding, they are needed: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #42 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-31 13:59:07 CEST --- Silly me, you are right, I'm wrong. Sloppy reading from my side. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #44 from Thomas Moschny <thomas.moschny(a)gmx.de&gt; 2012-03-31 14:35:03 CEST --- (In reply to comment #43) You could use this url to download the tarball directly from gitorious: http://gitorious.org/bombono-dvd/bombono-dvd/archive-tarball/22782514 This should give the same result for two independent downloads. Downside is that the last part of the link is not a good file name (so it is not so well suited to be used as Source: tag directly.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #46 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com&gt; 2012-03-31 17:57:03 CEST --- (In reply to comment #40) I have in the past been advised to remove it, though it really doesn't matter, hence why I said at your discretion. If you think it belongs, then it is by no means a problem. Though that is true it is a post release, it is a snapshot none the less. The post release refers to when upstream re-releases the code under the same version number or with letter at the end. In this situation, adding letters would be acceptable. If I am not mistaken this issue has more to do with yum/rpm than convention. I believe yum understands the difference between version 1.0-1 and 1.0a-1 and 1.0b-1, but does not understand the difference when too many letters are introduced. I'm hesitant on letting this get accepted in case there could be an issue later on. As a rule of thumb, avoid anymore than a few letters in the version number and always consider a pull from a vcs (such as git, svn, cvs, hg), that does not have a explicit version tag, a snapshot package. (In reply to comment #41) Yeah I thought as much, but I have no idea how this works so I didn't want to take a stab in the dark haha. I'll let you know if I have any more issues with building. It happens(In reply to comment #45) In the case of downloads that aren't so pretty, just put the name of the file in the source and provide a comment above it to explain how to get that file. You can use whatever means necessary, but the only requirement is to be able to reproduce it so: A) The check sum matches that of the SRPM source file B) It is clear enough that anyone, if necessary, can grab the same source using the guide you provide in the comments. Just at a quick glance of the link, if all that needs to be done is a rename of the source file, that is perfectly fine. Just if you do so remember to put the exact commands that you used to do it, for example: ##Commands to retrieve the source: #wget http://gitorious.org/bombono-dvd/bombono-dvd/archive-tarball/22782514 #mv ./22782514 ./bombono-dvd.tar.gz or whatever is applicable. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #48 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-04-01 11:37:39 CEST --- Links updated. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/bombono-dvd/bombono-dvd.spec http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/bombono-dvd/bombono-dvd-1.2.0-1.20120401... Trying to summarize: Kept the tag, as proposed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Recommended_values_for_the... Fixed As explained, because git clone from gitorious does not retain file modification dates. I suggest this is handled the same way as sources from svn repos, which always have this issue. In this case, a diff -r is used instead of md5sum to verify the sources. See e. g. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707613#c12 Fixed (after asking on mailing list). Fixed Thanks. I have pushed ASL release 8 to stable, and bombono now builds in mock for me. (to my regret, there was still a bug about missing ExcludeArch in ASL, but it does not affect rpmfusion builds on i686/x86_64) These are as prescribed by upstream in the README. They need to be explicit since they are not linked but rather invoked from the application. I have a script generating the sources, which actually makes a "git pull" each time. So I guess it's OK?! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 --- Comment #50 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-04-01 19:15:49 CEST --- Thanks for 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #52 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-04-01 19:58:36 CEST --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name:bombono-dvs Short Description: DVD authoring program with nice and clean GUI Owners: leamas Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: free -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 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.