https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2472 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mikhail.v.gavrilov(a)gmail.co | |m --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-23 21:28:26 CEST --- *** Bug 2494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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=2472 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |javiermon(a)gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-26 20:05:50 CEST --- *** Bug 2499 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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=2472 --- Comment #6 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-30 19:37:56 CEST --- Here is the review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. It matches Fedora name not the upstream tarball. [+] 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. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [-] 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. COPYING.LIB is not 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. upstream gst-libav-0.11.99.tar.xz 8e6eef583ca22c2e1021a76c80ea3fb7 gst-libav-0.11.99.tar.xz source gst-libav-0.11.99.tar.xz 8e6eef583ca22c2e1021a76c80ea3fb7 gst-libav-0.11.99.tar.xz [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Built on Fedora-18/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 [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [] 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. [+] 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: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. Fine. It's for RPM Fusion. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [+] 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. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] 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: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] 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. [+] 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 with Fedora-18/x86_64 [+] 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. I don't have access to a Fedora 18 therefore I cannot test it [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] 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. [+] 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. Issues: 1. COPYING.LIB is not included in %doc 2. Compile output is not verbose. I cannot check the CFLAGS used. -- 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=2472 --- Comment #8 from Robert Swain <robert.swain(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-10 15:42:58 CEST --- (In reply to comment #7) I did in mine. :) -- 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=2472 --- Comment #10 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-28 14:42:32 CET --- (In reply to comment #6) Thanks for the review! Both are fixed in my next version. (In reply to comment #7) Fixed in my next version as well. (In reply to comment #9) Running ldconfig is wrong / not needed as these are plugins not libraries. Other then that out specfiles are pretty much in sync :) Here is my latest version: http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/gstreamer1-libav.spec http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/gstreamer1-libav-1.0.2-1.fc19.src.rpm And here is the changelog: * Sun Oct 28 2012 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; - 1.0.2-1 - Rebase to 1.0.2 - Included libav copy updated to 0.8.4 - Change the license to LGPLv2+, as the GPL only postproc plugin is no longer included - Replace references to ffmpeg with libav (rf#2472) - Add COPYING.LIB to %%doc (rf#2472) - Run make with V=1 (rf#2472) -- 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=2472 --- Comment #12 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-10-28 17:40:25 CET --- Hans, these are the CFLAGS actually used: -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -std=c99 -fomit-frame-pointer -fPIC -pthread -g -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wall -Wno-parentheses -Wno-switch -Wno-format-zero-length -Wdisabled-optimization -Wpointer-arith -Wredundant-decls -Wno-pointer-sign -Wcast-qual -Wwrite-strings -Wtype-limits -Wundef -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -O3 -fno-math-errno -fno-signed-zeros -fno-tree-vectorize -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -Werror=missing-prototypes -Werror=declaration-after-statement As you can see the first part is composed by the standard Fedora optflags. In the second part there are other flags. One in particular caught my attention: the "-O3" that overrides the "-O2". This is not permitted by Fedora Guidelines. (In reply to comment #11) I can but later this week. Is it OK for you? If so, you can take #1798. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2472 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #14 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-11-03 10:30:10 CET --- (In reply to comment #13) I just opened bug #2560. Please add to the specfile that you are using the same flags used by the ffmpeg package as required by the Fedora Packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelin... When ffmpeg maintainer will fix this issue, you need to act accordingly. APPROVED! -- 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=2472 Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jdieter(a)gmail.com --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-11-04 14:23:02 CET --- Not meaning to throw a wrench in the works or anything, but isn't it against policy to bundle the libav libraries in this package? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries If I'm missing something, please feel free to ignore 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2472 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-11-04 15:12:41 CET --- Thanks much for the explanation. -- 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=2472 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fast.rizwaan(a)gmail.com --- Comment #19 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-11-10 17:03:24 CET --- *** Bug 2566 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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=2472 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- 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.