http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dtimms(a)iinet.net.au Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2009-11-30 13:01:41 --- I'll take first look; it's my first java review (go easy) ;-) Summary: I think this could be expanded a bit: perhaps: DVB mpg stream analysis, demultiplex and repair tool Patch: should that be %{name}... BuildRequires / Requires: I'd prefer to see at least the minimal build/requires on separate lines. This makes it easier to see that the package guidelines are being met, and when adjustments are needed, the diff from a previous version becomes clearer. %global not sure what that is or does. Can you please explain ? %description DVB is also used in other countries, eg Australia, so I'm not sure mentioning only Europe is important. Eg maybe "Europe and many countries... It would also be good to spell out the Digital Video Broadcasting before use of the acronym. Also, I think we aren't really looking at the transmissions themselves, but rather mpeg transport streams that DVB tuner device has decoded. %build Is there any standard ways of doing stuff in: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#build-classpath that would make sense to use with this package ? install & clean rm -rf %buildroot Is that supposed to be %{ } for most of the %xyz items. It would be clearer to create the install script as a file that goes into cvs, rather than create it during the build. %files why does %{bindir}/projectx need specific attribs set ? %changelog Please fix the typo in the date and preparation build process: I noticed two things while failing to build the package: 1. yum-builddep on .src: Installing: jakarta-commons-net noarch 2.0-2.fc12 fedora 187 k jakarta-oro i686 2.0.8-6.3.fc12 fedora 170 k java-1.5.0-gcj-devel i686 1.5.0.0-29.fc12 fedora 45 k recode i686 3.6-28.fc12 fedora 636 k Installing for dependencies: ecj i686 1:3.4.2-6.fc12 fedora 2.4 M gcc-java i686 4.4.2-7.fc12 fedora 3.3 M libgcj-devel i686 4.4.2-7.fc12 fedora 1.6 M libgcj-src i686 4.4.2-7.fc12 fedora 12 M Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 8 Package(s) Upgrade 0 Package(s) Total download size: 21 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: Setting up and reading Presto delta metadata Processing delta metadata Package(s) data still to download: 21 M (1/8): ecj-3.4.2-6.fc12.i686.rpm | 2.4 MB 00:05 (2/8): gcc-java-4.4.2-7.fc12.i686.rpm | 3.3 MB 00:03 (3/8): jakarta-commons-net-2.0-2.fc12.noarch.rpm | 187 kB 00:00 (4/8): jakarta-oro-2.0.8-6.3.fc12.i686.rpm | 170 kB 00:00 (5/8): java-1.5.0-gcj-devel-1.5.0.0-29.fc12.i686.rpm | 45 kB 00:00 (6/8): libgcj-devel-4.4.2-7.fc12.i686.rpm | 1.6 MB 00:01 (7/8): libgcj-src-4.4.2-7.fc12.i686.rpm | 12 MB 00:19 (8/8): recode-3.6-28.fc12.i686.rpm | 636 kB 00:00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 526 kB/s | 21 MB 00:39 Running rpm_check_debug Running Transaction Test Finished Transaction Test Transaction Test Succeeded Running Transaction Installing : 1:ecj-3.4.2-6.fc12.i686 1/8 Installing : jakarta-oro-2.0.8-6.3.fc12.i686 2/8 Installing : recode-3.6-28.fc12.i686 3/8 Installing : libgcj-devel-4.4.2-7.fc12.i686 4/8 Installing : libgcj-src-4.4.2-7.fc12.i686 5/8 Installing : jakarta-commons-net-2.0-2.fc12.noarch 6/8 Installing : gcc-java-4.4.2-7.fc12.i686 7/8 Installing : java-1.5.0-gcj-devel-1.5.0.0-29.fc12.i686 8/8 failed to read link /usr/bin/javac: No such file or directory failed to read link /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj: No such file or directory failed to read link /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0: No such file or directory Installed: jakarta-commons-net.noarch 0:2.0-2.fc12 jakarta-oro.i686 0:2.0.8-6.3.fc12 java-1.5.0-gcj-devel.i686 0:1.5.0.0-29.fc12 recode.i686 0:3.6-28.fc12 Dependency Installed: ecj.i686 1:3.4.2-6.fc12 gcc-java.i686 0:4.4.2-7.fc12 libgcj-devel.i686 0:4.4.2-7.fc12 libgcj-src.i686 0:4.4.2-7.fc12 Complete! ---- not sure if the failed to read link stuff is important. 2. rpmbuild -ba .spec: + cd ProjectX_Source_0.90.4 + /bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + echo 'Patch (ProjectX.sysjava.patch):' Patch (ProjectX.sysjava.patch): + /bin/cat /home/davidt/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ProjectX.sysjava.patch + /usr/bin/patch -s -p0 --fuzz=0 + exit 0 Executing(%build): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VKoNfM + umask 022 + cd /home/davidt/rpmbuild/BUILD + cd ProjectX_Source_0.90.4 + LANG=C + export LANG + unset DISPLAY + sed -i '/Class-Path/I d' MANIFEST.MF + sh build.sh build.sh: line 13: javac: command not found build.sh: line 15: jar: command not found error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VKoNfM (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.VKoNfM (%build) ===== So the question is: Do I need to configure alternatives to set a preferred javac jar ? And if so, how would this work on the build system, where we don't have the ability to manually set such things ? -- Configure bugmail: http://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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #2 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2009-11-30 13:45:31 --- Is there anything in the mandriva spec that applies to fedora ? http://rpm.pbone.net/index.php3/stat/26/dist/49/size/451062/name/projectx... , it is pretty old though. They have included a desktop file, so I'm guessing it's a gui app and hence needs a destop file in Fedora / RPM Fusion. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |oget.fedora(a)gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-11-30 20:53:37 --- Also please consider adding the GCJ AOT bits to the package, as requested in java packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines Java SIG says we still need them: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-java-list/2009-November/msg0... -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 Chris Nolan <chris(a)cenolan.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chris(a)cenolan.com --- Comment #6 from Chris Nolan <chris(a)cenolan.com&gt; 2009-11-30 23:46:40 --- Hi Göran, thanks for submitting ProjectX it is a great tool... I wondered have you considered using a CVS checkout of the ProjectX source for this RPM instead of the latest official release? I've recently used ProjectX on Fedora (11) and found that the latest release version (0.90.4.00 - over 3 years old!) on which you're basing this RPM has some fairly major shortcomings. In the end I had to build my own version from the CVS source in order to successfully demux some .ts files from a Humax box: the release version would just error and fail but the problem was fixed many years ago in CVS. The release version also has a fairly horrible UI compared to the latest CVS checkout and is generally just a bit crappy/buggy in comparison. Just seems that as you're going to the trouble to bring this to Fedora it would be worthwhile considering using a more recent/useful version? Best Chris -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #8 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; 2009-12-06 17:11:02 --- Thanks for all the comments. Now I have an updated version of ProjectX. I believe I've taken all comments into account. Two things to note: - I've based this version on a CVS snapshot from December 1 this year. - I couldn't find any recommendation that %{...} was preferable to %..., so I kept the latter form. (I personally find it clearer without braces when they are not needed.) Current URL:s are: Spec: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/ProjectX/ProjectX.spec Source: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/ProjectX/ProjectX-0.90.4.00-3.20091201cvs.src.rpm Did I miss some comment? Does anyone see more things that could be improved? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #10 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; 2010-02-09 16:24:34 --- There was a flurry of comments in the beginning, and then nothing happened. I'm supposed to wait until someone has time to continue this review, right? I believe so, but because of the delay I just wanted to check this is not waiting for me to do something. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #11 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2010-08-01 04:17:44 --- (In reply to comment #10) Correct, although you can appeal for reviewers or request review swaps on the rpmfusion-devel list. I forgot all about this one, sorry about that. I was really keen to get this app into rpmfusion, but have little java build experience to enable me to say much more about this package than I already noted. That said: 1. Every time you make a published change to the spec, you need to bump the release number, for eg. the original and current spec have (almost) identical version-release. The fact that you missed doing that suggests you might need to re-read the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Release I think the snapshot falls into the post release category. This is important to help others track the package changes, and to ensure upgrade-ability with the standard tools (rpm/yum/packagekit). eg this should be at least -4.... so that it will replace -3 the last version. 2. The changelog info was not updated, other than overwriting the date of an existing item, which doesn't make sense. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs ps: you might light to try using a visual diff tool like meld to review your changes, so that these can be placed in the changelog. It's a very different spec (over 80% larger). An item should be added (not for every line change) to describe the essence of each change: - update to snapshot from cvs 2009-xxxx ? - something about gcj ?? 3. description: it's non-standard to double-space sentences. 4. Source: should at least include a correct upstream path. I think it would be useful to place a comment: - showing the release download link. - the fact that you are using a snapshot, and why (eg last release 2006, fixes only in snapshot) - how the snapshot is generated, and preferably a script to generate the snapshot, so that others can easily verify the download. 5. It can ease reading of the spec to separate the main sections with two-new lines. At least this should be consistent through the spec. 6. %buildroot%_datadir : while Hans mentioned the reasoning behind using %{_x}, it would seem to make the spec clearer by using them eg in: %buildroot%{_datadir} , and is also widely used in fedora. That's all I have for the moment. I'm happy to help further once you have a new spec to review. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #13 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2010-08-01 16:03:10 --- Created an attachment (id=454) --> (http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=454) old ver 3 spec (In reply to comment #12) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #15 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2010-08-02 14:10:20 --- (In reply to comment #12) gcj standard spec items: ===== BuildArchitectures: noarch seems that should be BuildArch: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines ===== %files ... %if %with_gcj %_libdir/gcj/%name Seems to be missing some bits as described "Add the following to the %files section:" ===== Since I'm no expert on java nor scripts, my preference would be for all these bits to be exact copy paste from the GCJGuidelines page, rather than modified versions, since I can't see what the difference would achieve (eg security risk etc). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #17 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; 2010-08-03 15:25:24 --- Yes, I am sponsored and maintain packages in Fedora already. (Just a couple, but still.) My FAS name is "goeran". -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #19 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; 2010-08-03 21:01:30 --- Some quick replies first. I'll be back with an updated version later on. (Could take a few days before I have the time.) As I understand it, rpmlint doesn't quite understand %if clauses in SPEC files. The noarch directive and the line with libdir macro can never both be active. It's either one or the other, depending on the value of %with_gcj. But, apparently, rpmlint doesn't see that. I believe I tried, and it couldn't. But I'll double check. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #21 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2010-08-04 10:34:42 --- (In reply to comment #20) Given I'm a java packaging beginner, what does the above mean for this package ? eg: if it will go in F12 will it need the gcj bits from the packaging guidelines ? Additionally, Chen, are you able to take a look at Göran's next spec, because I think we are close to having the package ready for approval ? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #23 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2010-08-08 16:17:08 --- (In reply to comment #22) Ack. Ack. And most people will have xz since rpms uses it, so good pickup. As I understand it, desktop-file-install validates the .desktop and adds the version number. Hence we shouldn't add: +Version=1.0 ... Ack. ===== Actually, we aren't explicitly required to fix bugs, however, the following is reasonable bad. File|Add change a few directories, use the up directory icon near top-right. Also click the top-right "show detail" list icon. (I called that the wrong name, but it has no hint). Things get really weird, eg. disk has /home/1/2/3/4/5 the path shown in the top dropdown is 3, but the dialog is showing the contents of the folder 5. ===== Given both our lack of java rpm packaging experience, perhaps you could ask on either a fedora java or jpackage list about whether the spec is clear, follows guildelines, and is there anything else that should be added/changed ? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #25 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2010-08-09 16:23:41 --- (In reply to comment #24) Or lets you rename the folder (for me), rather than opening it. I saw the response from Andrew, suggesting do you want gcj ? I don't know the answer to this, nor the best way forward. I am testing on my F12 machine (don't have f13 at the moment). $ alternatives --config java There are 2 programs which provide 'java'. Selection Command ----------------------------------------------- *+ 1 /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.6.0-openjdk.x86_64/bin/java 2 /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.5.0-gcj/bin/java If there is adjustments you can make so that it works OK on F13, and you only want to support F >= 13, then that would be OK. (By the way, I'm going to be away from pc a few days). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #27 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; 2010-08-11 23:35:05 --- I spent some time to investigate the errors we discussed. With OpenJDK 1.6.0 I can not reproduce them. I found double-clicking on a directory works if I do it really fast. Doing it slightly less fast I got to edit the name instead. Googling a bit I figured out that this is a parameter that one can change. By merging *multiClickTime: 1000 with xrdb, I could double-click quite slowly. So this might be a parameter with a bad default in Java, but not a bug in ProjectX. I can't get the confusion between the dropdown and the window content you describe with this jre. I managed to reproduce it once with the GCJ jre, but never with OpenJDK. So this looks more like a jre bug than a ProjectX bug. If you can provide me with a precise test case that reliably fails, I will report it upstreams. But as it stands now, I don't think I have anything to report, except possibly on GCJ. There is one somewhat odd issue that the window is not always initially drawn. But I saw that in another Java application too, so could also be something outside ProjectX. I need to pinpoint it better before I know what and most importantly to where to report it. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 --- Comment #29 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2010-08-18 15:36:00 --- (In reply to comment #27) Are you planning to support only openjdk ? Which Fedora releases ? (Just want to see a successful build that essentially works, but I'm still F12). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |3 --- Comment #31 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; 2010-08-24 16:58:23 --- (In reply to comment #26) OK, I had a try to test build, install and run on F13 x86_64. This was successfull, using: alternatives --config java There are 2 programs which provide 'java'. Selection Command ----------------------------------------------- 1 /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.5.0-gcj/bin/java *+ 2 /usr/lib/jvm/jre-1.6.0-openjdk.x86_64/bin/java No immediate issue with runtime operation of the program. A fresh snapshot was compared with the srpm's included cvs snapshot. After extraction, a diff -ur between the two folder structures are identical. I believe we have covered all the packaging guidelines and the specific java ones as well. Since there hasn't been any further expression of improvments to make, I am hearby APPROVING the above package. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #33 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; 2010-08-24 17:41:16 --- Than YOU David for the review! Now, could I have some help from a CVS admin, please: Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: ProjectX Short Description: DVB video editing and demultiplexing tool Owners: goeran Branches: F13 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: free -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #35 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; 2010-09-03 22:14:10 --- The separate RPM Fusion FAS account is there now. I'm not yet in the “cvsextras” group, but I assume that will happen soon, since I'm already sponsored in Fedora. (Or should I have waited for that too, before I reblocked bug 33?) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985 Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #36 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; 2010-09-24 23:22:10 --- The package is now in the repositories. Thanks everyone for your help! -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.