https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2036 --- Comment #1 from Alex Lancaster <alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net&gt; 2011-11-18 19:44:32 CET --- (In reply to comment #0) Is the ffmpeg a hard requirement? I thought fftw (in Fedora) could do some of the audio decoding? -- 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=2036 --- Comment #2 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2011-11-18 20:20:13 CET --- (In reply to comment #1) For sure. Libchromaprint can build against fftw3 as you know, but fpcalc binds with the ffmpeg API. No option here. The acoustid-fingerprint tool fall in this same case. I assume is obviously possible to code a new fpcalc-like tool using FFTW but I'm not aware of anyone, neither Luks, the author, had told me anything on 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=2036 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hobbes1069(a)gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2011-12-09 23:07:23 CET --- Is it settled? This belongs in RPM Fusion? If so I'll review 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=2036 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|2 |3 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |hobbes1069(a)gmail.com |mfusion.org | --- Comment #6 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2011-12-09 23:20:32 CET --- Ok, quick spec review first. 1. You don't need the "-n chromaprint-tools" since it's the name of the package. You'll still need -n on %setup though since directory in the archive doesn't include "tools" in the name". Speaking of which, I noticed you're deleting a lot of stuff in the spec. Is there a reason for this? 2. Don't use macro versions of basic shell tools, in this case "rm". It's not necessary and just hurts readability. 3. Unless you're going to build for EL5 (unlikely) you can get rid of: BuildRoot: %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} in %install %clean entirely %defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files -- 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=2036 Alex Lancaster <alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Alex Lancaster <alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net&gt; 2011-12-10 01:42:11 CET --- Since this is in review, changing to ASSIGNED. -- 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=2036 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2011-12-10 05:36:20 CET --- Huh? No package in RPM Fusion is packaged as delta/patch RPMs, our toolset doesn't even support them. What we do is that we package a -freeworld RPM in RPM Fusion which contains only the files not in the Fedora RPM (by not building them if possible, or deleting them in %install otherwise), or if that's not possible, which overrides the files from the Fedora RPM without conflicting with it. This chromaprint-tools package is already following the recommended approach. Uhm, no, please only add '='-versioned dependencies on Fedora packages if absolutely necessary (i.e. if the tools version x are not expected to work with the library version y≠x)! '='-versioned dependencies mean the packages in Fedora and RPM Fusion need to be pushed at exactly the same time, which in practice can only be approximated, so there's always a window where the user will not be able to update. Thus, please do not gratuitously add them when not needed. -- 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=2036 --- Comment #12 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2011-12-10 16:11:03 CET --- We can normally assume that a library with the same soname is compatible, at least one way (>= dependency), sometimes both ways (in which case no explicit versioned dependency is necessary at all). And yes, PackageKit does a --skip-broken, but it's still an annoyance (e.g. you have the update prompt nagging you all the time, and actually updating won't do anything). -- 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=2036 --- Comment #14 from Alex Lancaster <alexl(a)users.sourceforge.net&gt; 2011-12-10 21:12:40 CET --- (In reply to comment #13) Yes, if fpcalc dynamically links to libraries in the main Fedora chromaprint package, then no need to include the Requires, as auto requires will do it for us. This is a similar situation as the picard-freeworld package that builds from the same tarball as the Fedora picard package that I both maintain. picard-freeworld adds a single .so to main picard Fedora package, except that in that case, the .so file (it's essentially a plugin) doesn't link to anything in the main Fedora package, so we need a manual "Requires" on picard, and I make the picard-freeworld Require == %{version} because in this case, there are possible API issues if it isn't installed with at least the same major version of picard. (This also means that the release tag doesn't necessarily need to match, meaning that packaging fixes for either package can be pushed independently). I am also very careful to co-ordinate the pushes the Fedora/RPM Fusion packages at the same time (I file a bug here to prevent pushes to stable of picard-freeworld until corresponding Fedora picard has been pushed) and this has worked pretty well, generally there's at most a few hours when the deps might be broken. Either works for me. We do the latter in picard-freeworld: http://cvs.rpmfusion.org/viewvc/rpms/picard-freeworld/devel/picard-freewo... -- 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=2036 --- Comment #16 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2011-12-27 23:06:44 CET --- Update: Spec URL: http://olea.org/tmp/chromaprint-tools-rpms/chromaprint-tools.spec SRPM URL: http://olea.org/tmp/chromaprint-tools-rpms/chromaprint-tools-0.6-1.fc16.s... - fixed rpm-ism's - updated to 0.6 about fpcalc, it links statically with chromaprint so the requires are innecesary -- 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=2036 --- Comment #18 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-03 22:50:36 CET --- Looks like the last SRPM link is bad. I'll try to get a full review done as soon as the link is fixed. Richard -- 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=2036 --- Comment #20 from Ismael Olea <ismael(a)olea.org&gt; 2012-01-04 22:51:35 CET --- http://olea.org/tmp/chromaprint-tools.spec http://olea.org/paquetes-rpm/fedora-16/chromaprint-tools-0.6-2.fc16.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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2036 --- Comment #22 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-14 20:59:42 CET --- Yes, sorry. Between home and work life and the F17 mass rebuild for gcc 4.7 I've been a little busy. Checking it out 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2036 --- Comment #24 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-14 22:02:23 CET --- Ok, one more thing. I just caught that your cmake command was in %prep, it belongs in %build. Otherwise the package looks good. Here's my review: +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: LGPLv2+ [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license file is included in %doc: COPYING [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5 (6b5a4f2685395e68d8abc40d1c2a8785) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16 x86_64 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [N] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] 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 [N] 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: [+] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64 [?] package functions as described: Didn't test [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts Once you post a new SRPM with the last few things fixed I can approve. -- 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=2036 Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #26 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-14 23:33:52 CET --- Looks good to me! *** 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=2036 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.