https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2455 Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk 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=2455 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |musuruan(a)gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-08-25 11:14:04 CEST --- Hi Giles! I'm not a sponsor just an ordinary packager but I can help you to improve this package. The License field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. It is not a list of licences used in the source files: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field If you pull sources from upstream's revision control system instead of using an upstream tarball, follow this guideline: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control Remember to use a Name-version-release compatible with the Version and Release Guidelines. In particular, check the section on Naming Snapshots: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages If you can only build the package on i686, use "ExclusiveArch: i686" instead of "BuildArch: i686" Remove some optional spec stuff (BuildRoot:, %clean, %defattr...) that is no longer needed unless you want to build an RPM for EPEL. Is subversion really required to build this package? Why does it require evince? If it is to read the docs please note that the program must run properly if everything included in %doc is not present: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation %cmake macro already sets CFLAGS. Watch the outout of "rpm --eval %cmake". You can also pass parameters to the %cmake macro. Why do you call again cmake (no macro) after %cmake (macro)? Every changes like removing executable bits from doc files must be done in %prep. Moreover, there is no need to gzip man pages (rpm does this for you) or moving docs around (you can tell there they are in the spec file). Desktop files must be installed using desktop-file-install: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_... Moreover, icons are not places in the correct location: %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.png If you install icons there you must also use icon cache scriptles: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache -- 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=2455 --- Comment #4 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-08-26 19:10:30 CEST --- (In reply to comment #3) You are welcome. It seems the License should be "LGPLv3+". Note the plus at the end. It means GNU Lesser General Public License either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. That is what it's written in the LICENSE file and the source files I have opened. But I'd really like to have a look again at the audition you made on the source files to be more precise. Unluckily I don't have the old spec file anymore. You must also make sure you ***don't use any bundled libraries***. You must remove the 3rdparty directory in %prep and eventually patch pcsx2 to use system libraries. Let's make a step backward. I didn't know pcsx2 v1.0 has been release at the beginning of this month. So the first question here is why do you base the package on a revision control checkout instead of a stable release? Usually you base your packages on stable versions unless there are really good reasons. Yes. Specify "ExclusiveArch: i686" :). A comment specifying why it cannot be compiled and run on other architectures must be written. You can build it on x64_64 using mock: $ mock -r fedora-17-i386-rpmfusion_nonfree pcsx2-1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm NB: pcsx2 will have to go to rpmfusion-nonfree because it depends on Cg. There is no need to specify evince. Please get rid of the "Requires". The %cmake macro already sets CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, therefore do not specify it. Call %cmake with "%cmake . <options>" not "%cmake CmakeList.txt <options>": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Cmake The flags used while compiling are not only the one passed by %cmake (ie the ones specified in CFLAGS) but there are others that conflict with them ("-m32 -msse -msse2 -march=i686"). You must patch pcsx2 to remove them. The debuginfo package is too small. The binary files have been stripped. Change CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug. At this point perfoming rpmlint on the debug package, you'll get tons of: "incorrect-fsf-address". You must report this errors upstream: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address You can just specify something like this instead of moving and renaming docs. %doc %{name}/Docs/*.txt Anyway, the best thing would be to specify the correct DOCDIR in %cmake. If you have just an icon it is fine to leave it in /usr/share/pixmap. In this way you won't need the icon cache scriptlets. There is already a desktop file installed. Why do you provide your own? There is already an icon installed. Why do you provide your own? Usually you want to use upstream ones and patch them if needed. Do not use the following syntax: %{__mkdir_p} Just use "mkdir -p". It's more consistent with the style used in the spec file. Never use the %makeinstall macro. Use "make install". https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstal... For handling locale files, have a look here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files Please read carefully what you need to do when you have a program that is NOT called %{name}. -- 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=2455 --- Comment #6 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-03 10:46:21 CEST --- (In reply to comment #5) Hi Giles, [..[ They are not passed to cmake because you correctly patched out the flags ("-msse -msse2"). But it seems the software demands SSE and SSE2. This is a big problem because not all i686 architectures supported by Fedora supports SSE or SSE2. I don't know if this is allowed. I think not, but I suggest you to ask for advice on the rpmfusion-devel mailing list. AFAIK Debug just produce debug symbols and these are needed to have a correct debuginfo RPM package. This is needed for the final build too. After carefully looking at these licenses, the resulting license is: GPLv3. Ignoring file in debian/* because they are not used (LGPLv3). Expat, BSD-3-Clause, SGI FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE B 2.0 and PD are all compatible with both GPL and LGPL. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Mixing LGPLv3+ and LGPLv2+ you get LGPLv3+. Mixing GPLv2+ and LGPLv3+ you get ***GPLv3***. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses Upstream should be notified. If they really want to release pcsx2 under LGPLv3+ they must re-license files under GPLv2+ to LGPLv2+ or LGPLv3+. I still don't get why you are not using upstream tarball (available here: http://pcsx2.net/download/releases/linux/viewcategory/4-linux.html) instead of a svn checkout. These are not needed: # The following files are under GNU General Public License v3.0 only: pcsx2/*, common/*, plugins/spu2-x/*, plugins/PadNull/Pad*, plugins/USBnull/*, plugins/FWnull/*, plugins/CDVDnull/CDVD*, plugins/GSnull/*, plugins/dev9null/DEV9.cpp # The following files are under GNU General Public License v2.0 or later: pcsx2/Mdec.cpp, pcsx2/Mdec.h, pcsx2/RDebug/deci2_drfp.cpp, pcsx2/IPU/mpeg2lib/*, pcsx2/cheatscpp.h, common/include/api/*, plugins/onepad/*, plugins/PadNull/Linux/*, plugins/SPU2null/*, plugins/FWnull/FW.cpp, plugins/zerospu2/*, plugins/zzogl-pg/*, plugins/GSnull/Registers.h, plugins/GSnull/Linux/Linux*, plugins/GSnull/Linux/Config*, plugins/dev9null/DEV9.h, plugins/dev9null/Config.* # The following files are under GNU Lesser General Public License v2 (or 2.1) or later: plugins/spu2-x/src/Spu2replay.*, plugins/spu2-x/src/Decode*, plugins/spu2-x/src/Linux/ConfigSoundTouch.cpp, plugins/spu2-x/src/spdif.h, plugins/spu2-x/src/Debug.h # The following files are under MIT license (also X11) Copyright 1991-2000, Silicon Graphics, Inc: plugins/zzogl-pg/opengl/glprocs.* # The following file is under MIT license (also X11) Copyright 2006, KJK:Hyperion <hackbunny(a)reactos.com&gt;: common/include/intrin_x86.h # The following file is under BSD license (no advertising) Copyright 2002, Michael Ringgaard: common/src/Utilities/vssprintf.cpp # The following file is licensed under Public Domain: plugins/zzogl-pg/opengl/zpipe.cpp # The license status of the following files is unknown: plugins/zzogl-pg/opengl/ZeroGSShaders/zerogsshaders* All patch names should begin with the package name and (not mandatory but strongly suggested) by version name. I.e. pcsx2-1.0-fedora_cmake.patch Some lines are too long to be read. Split them on multiple lines with "\". As already reported /usr/share/pixmaps is not a "wrong" place for Fedora. It is acceptable. Other remarks I gave you still applies but I think you haven't yet finished updating 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=2455 --- Comment #8 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-03 18:05:56 CEST --- I did a little clean up, fixing some of the things the reviewer mentioned. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/34775202/pcsx2.spec I don't have time to test builds under mock since I'm on x86_64. Are you sure you need both cmake and automake/autoconf in the BuildRequires? -- 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=2455 --- Comment #10 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-03 20:00:07 CEST --- (In reply to comment #9) Unfortunately neither an I, but I did update the spec some more: - Out of source build (often preferred or mandatory with cmake) - Fixed some extra "/"'s (not needed after %{buildroot}) - Removed autotools from BuildRequires. - Made the cmake command clearer. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/34775202/pcsx2.spec -- 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=2455 --- Comment #12 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2012-09-09 17:41:10 CEST --- Hi Andrea and Richard, I have moved the spec file forward I think, and now the documents and the localizations are improved. I have not yet tried rpmlint or to report any errors upstream, but using -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo results in a big debugging package (28 MB) and builds okay - so thanks for that tip, Richard. I have removed the changes you made for the out of source build as I could not build with them - and while I see the point of not polluting source if I am using the development build, it seems to make no difference when packaging as far as I can see. So I think the problems left are these: -detecting sse2 -using the svn as a source rather than the pcsx2 download webpage -report debug errors in rpmlint upstream -detecting sse2: I think the outcome of the online discussion on the list was that I should include a check for SSE2 in the spec file, so it would not build if not present on the machine? My programming is not very good. I can check for sse with cat /proc/cpuinfo - could I then egrep -q 'sse2' This doesn't seem to work for me: I would be grateful if you could suggest a way to check for sse2 and stop the build if not present? -using the source on csx2 webpage: the source on pcsx2 webpage <http://pcsx2.net/download/releases/source-code/summary/7-source/93-pcsx2-... requires that a box is checked to agree to conditions then a html button is clicked to start download. The download is a 7zip file of the entire trunk (i.e. 3rd party and useless windows libraries etc etc.). This seems very complicated to me- I do not know the method to get a file in bash when the page requests this information. Also, I can modify Gregory's script to create a tarball from this file, but this script will then depend on 7zip. Is this preferable to the current method - (svn branch 1.0 is stable)? If so, is it possible can you suggest how I can download the source from this page? -I will deal with rpmlint error reporting after these issues are resolved. spec file: <http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=40093> srpm: <http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=40094> -- 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=2455 --- Comment #14 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2012-09-09 21:23:08 CEST --- I have had a conversation upstream: --there is a runtime check for SSE / 2 - if not present the program will strip out sse / 2 dependent parts. -- building with the opeion -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo has built the development build (as default). So will be no good. Again I will have to go for a -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release build if I want the program to build at any speed. So this problem is not 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=2455 --- Comment #16 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-09 22:52:42 CEST --- If you look at the generated CMakeCache.txt file (after running cmake) you'll find the following: //Flags used by the compiler during Release with Debug Info builds. CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELWITHDEBINFO:STRING=-O2 -g This is what you want (and also uses -O2 which is also what you want). If you choose 'Release' you get: //Flags used by the compiler during release builds (/MD /Ob1 /Oi // /Ot /Oy /Gs will produce slightly less optimized but smaller // files). CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=-O3 -DNDEBUG Which uses -O3 (bad) and does not produce debuginfo (-DNDEBUG). -- 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=2455 --- Comment #18 from gregory.hainaut(a)gmail.com 2012-09-09 23:28:39 CEST --- I forgot to say. All cmake build option is managed inside trunk/cmake/BuildParameters.cmake. You can give it a look to understand what is going on. -- 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=2455 --- Comment #20 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-10 10:10:10 CEST --- (In reply to comment #19) The easiest way is to do as Richard said (just one parameter in cmake). What Greg's saying is also fine (two parameters in cmake). No, because you are not upstream. You can put a comment before the Source URL on how to download the file. Anyway, the .7z archive is not very distribution friendly. Maybe upstream can use a .tar.gz. This would be much better :-) -- 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=2455 --- Comment #22 from gregory.hainaut(a)gmail.com 2012-09-10 19:52:06 CEST --- Upsteam tarball => http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-Unofficial-linux-build?pid=176154#pid176154 By the way, Giles did you use GLSL or CG for zzogl? There is some incompabilities with cg and GPL2 code... -- 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=2455 --- Comment #24 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-14 15:45:28 CEST --- (In reply to comment #21) [..] You are right. There is no RelWithDebInfo option. But it could be a nice future addition ;-) These are the flags actually used by Fedora to build for i686: CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m32 -march=i686 -mtune=atom -fasynchronous-unwind-tables' They are mandatory. This means you have to build Fedora packages with these flags. As you can see they already include "-m32 -march=i686". "--march=i686" implies only Pentium Pro and does not imply MMX or anything newer: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Support Not all i686 processors, like the AMD Geode LX (and this is currently shipped), support SSE or SSE2. And this is a problem for us. 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. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2455 --- Comment #26 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-15 10:32:48 CEST --- (In reply to comment #25) We are bound to Fedora guidelines and therefore we must use those flags. Again, it's not really our choice as we follow Fedora guidelines so we must support those CPUs. But that can even mean that the user is warned at runtime that he cannot run the emulator with his PC. -- 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=2455 --- Comment #28 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-15 11:54:07 CEST --- (In reply to comment #26) I'm sorry but I cannot parse that ! We are only bound to have a brain! and guidelines doesn't mean we cannot use our mind to solve specific situation. Specially my position was explained here: https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2012-September... For this case it would simply means: - We need to use the fedora cflags by default - PCSX2 can enforce additional cflags (such as -sse2) "IF" when running on a CPU that doesn't have them, an error is properly output. That will make the package ExclusiveArch: i686. - If others cflags from fedora are producing issue with this package, then the cflags and the related error need to be sorted out from the spec file and linked to a bug report for a later resolution. -- 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=2455 --- Comment #30 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2012-10-15 23:06:55 CEST --- Sorry to have left this hanging around so long. Things got very busy, just trying to carve out some time to finish this off. Updated rpm and spec: SPEC file: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=40503 SRC RPM: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=40502 Changes: Switched to package posted by upstream I have patched out -m32 from CFLAGS. I was unsure after the exchange if -i686 should be in or out after the flurry of conflicting comments. Gregory seemed to imply pcsx2 would not build properly without, so I left it in for now anyway. rpmlint report of fsf errors has been sent to upstream Build options have been changed to Gregory's suggestions I have a few rpmlint errors on the rpm but almost none worth speaking of on the src rpm As this is a new package I have altered the changelog - no need to include all the stuff from the svn revision builds rpm: $ rpmlint pcsx2-1.0.0-1.fc16.i686.rpm pcsx2.i686: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/pcsx2-1.0.0/GPL.txt pcsx2.i686: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/pcsx2-1.0.0/License.txt pcsx2.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/pcsx2.xpm pcsx2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcsx2_ZZCGReplayLoader pcsx2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcsx2_ZZReplayLoader pcsx2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pcsx2_GSReplayLoader pcsx2.i686: E: non-empty-%post /sbin/ldconfig pcsx2.i686: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. I presume first ones are complaining about .txt file script without shebang does not seem to be corrected by removing executable bit from file. Not sure if it's important no man page- not important I think non-empty-xxxx -- I copied the script from fedora packagers instructions so I think this is okay? srcrpm: $ rpmlint pcsx2-1.0.0-1.fc16.src.rpm pcsx2.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) pcsx2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: pcsx2-linux_source-1.0.0-rev5412.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. First one I can correct if this is important, but left it for now I think the invalid-url is not important, as Gregory has uploaded file to pcsx2 noticeboard it has an aid number rather than package name, but downloads okay with wget Hopefully this is getting there, but do let me know your comments. -- 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=2455 --- Comment #32 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2012-10-17 12:58:34 CEST --- Thanks Gregory, I'll add that to the script. -- 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=2455 --- Comment #34 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-11-11 18:55:28 CET --- (In reply to comment #33) We do this leaving bleeding edge packages in testing and not moving them on stable branches. Please read here: http://rpmfusion.org/ManualUpdates -- 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=2455 --- Comment #36 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-05-20 16:20:04 CEST --- (In reply to comment #35) If Giles provides an package updated with the previous issues solved I will 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=2455 --- Comment #40 from gregory.hainaut(a)gmail.com 2013-05-20 19:12:13 CEST --- Don't know. For me it is a conflict between the gcc __rdtsc version and the one from PCSX2. -- 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=2455 --- Comment #42 from gregory.hainaut(a)gmail.com 2013-05-20 19:52:45 CEST --- Well that what the patch does actually. -- 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=2455 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Blocks|2 |3 AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |musuruan(a)gmail.com |mfusion.org | --- Comment #44 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-05-29 12:33:56 CEST --- I've taken the review of this package. Issues found: * Remove no longer needed: - rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install - Group tag * The URL tag is wrong. It should be the upstream web site. Therefore I think it should be http://pcsx2.net/ (or https://code.google.com/p/pcsx2/ ) * The web site on google code states the latest officially released version is 1.0.0 (r5350). On pcsx2.net the same source code is available. Why are you using a different version (r5412)? We should try to follow upstream. * All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelin... * Avoid using the %{version} macro in patches. Otherwise you'll have to updated them at every release and this may not be the case. E.g. %{name}-%{version}_helpfile.diff -> %{name}-1.0.0_helpfile.diff * pcsx2-1.0.0_fedora_cmake.diff may no longer be needed because Fedora<16 are no longer supported. * You can shorten the following comment because all the info are in the specified page. Moreover, place it *before* the ExclusiveArch tag. # PCSX2 does not support running as a 64 bit application. # http://code.google.com/p/pcsx2/wiki/ChrootAnd64bStatusLinux * Requires: hicolor-icon-theme is missing. It is required because you have icons in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/ * You could add this warning in the %description (taken from the debian package): WARNING: It requires a CPU with SSE2 instructions. If your CPU does not support this instruction set, it does not have enough horse power to run this emulator anyway. * The %cmake macro already sets CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX and CMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE therefore do not specify them. You can see this with: rpm --eval %cmake * Use %{_docdir} instead of %{_defaultdocdir}. Moreover this is wrong: -DDOC_DIR=%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} It should be: -DDOC_DIR=%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} Then just add in %doc the missing files. * %find_lang must be run at the end of %install: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelin... * bin/docs/pcsx2.1 is a man page and it must not be installed in %doc. It is already installed in %{_mandir}. * Avoid packaging readme-Docs.txt. It is a message for developers and not for end users. * You can also omit bin/docs/GPL.html. There is already a GPL.txt file. * Use one of these formats for the changelog: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelin... * Changelog is incorrect. It has two entries for 1.0.0-1. You probably forgot to bump the release. You must bump the release every time you make some changes. * Running rpmlint produces many warnings and errors that should be taken care of. rpmlint pcsx2-1.0.0-1.fc18.src.rpm pcsx2.src:138: W: macro-in-%changelog %{_prefix} pcsx2.src:140: W: macro-in-%changelog %files pcsx2.src:11: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) pcsx2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: pcsx2-linux_source-1.0.0-rev5412.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. * Macros in changelog must be escaped. eg %%macro and not %macro. * mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 11) * Use the same indentation even when you are using spaces. * Provide a link to the upstream source URL. If it is not possible, you must state in the spec file how to retrieve the file: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL rpmlint pcsx2-1.0.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm pcsx2.i686: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/pcsx2-1.0.0/GPL.txt pcsx2.i686: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/pcsx2-1.0.0/License.txt pcsx2.i686: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps/pcsx2.xpm pcsx2.i686: E: non-empty-%post /sbin/ldconfig pcsx2.i686: E: non-empty-%postun /sbin/ldconfig 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. * Read here on how to fix them: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelin... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets rpmlint pcsx2-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSVector.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUState.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GS.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUSetupPrimCodeGenerator.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSVertexTrace.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDeviceSW.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureOGL.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPURendererSW.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPURendererSW.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureNull.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSBlock.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSFunctionMap.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSSetting.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSVertexTrace.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/zzogl-pg-cg/opengl/x86-32.S pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRendererSW.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSVertexArrayOGL.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureCache.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUScanlineEnvironment.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureCacheSW.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDrawScanlineCodeGenerator.x86.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDrawScanline.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDrawScanline.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSScanlineEnvironment.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRendererHW.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSBlock.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPULocalMemory.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUDrawScanlineCodeGenerator.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSPerfMon.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/zzogl-pg-cg/opengl/GSDump.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSClut.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDeviceSW.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSSetupPrimCodeGenerator.x86.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSCrc.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSUtil.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSUniformBufferOGL.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/spu2-x/src/Linux/ConfigSoundTouch.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GS.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUDrawScanlineCodeGenerator.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDeviceNull.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUSetupPrimCodeGenerator.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSState.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPURenderer.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/zzogl-pg/opengl/GSDump.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTexture.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSUtil.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureCacheSW.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRendererNull.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/stdafx.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/zzogl-pg/opengl/ZZoglShaders.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSCapture.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDirtyRect.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSCrc.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRenderer.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSAlignedClass.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSVertexSW.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUDrawingEnvironment.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDeviceNull.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSCapture.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureSW.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDump.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/stdafx.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSdx.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSVector.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureCacheOGL.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSLocalMemory.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDrawScanlineCodeGenerator.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDrawingEnvironment.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDevice.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPU.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDump.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRasterizer.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDirtyRect.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRendererOGL.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSState.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRendererSW.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSThread.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSThread.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDevice.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSLinuxDialog.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPU.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSSetupPrimCodeGenerator.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSSetupPrimCodeGenerator.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSPerfMon.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSVertexList.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureNull.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDrawingContext.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/zzogl-pg/opengl/GSDump.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRenderer.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRasterizer.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSWnd.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTexture.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUDrawScanline.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSClut.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureOGL.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUVertex.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/zzogl-pg-cg/opengl/GSDump.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSWnd.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTables.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureSW.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPURenderer.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDrawScanlineCodeGenerator.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPULocalMemory.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureFXOGL.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureCache.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUState.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTables.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSTextureCacheOGL.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/zzogl-pg-cg/opengl/ZZoglShaders.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDeviceOGL.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSLocalMemory.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSCodeBuffer.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSVertex.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRendererOGL.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GPUDrawScanline.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSDeviceOGL.h pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSdx.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSCodeBuffer.cpp pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/pcsx2-1.0.0/plugins/GSdx/GSRendererHW.cpp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 119 errors, 0 warnings. I read you reported this errors upstream but I can't find an upstream bug here: https://code.google.com/p/pcsx2/issues/list -- 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=2455 --- Comment #46 from gregory.hainaut(a)gmail.com 2013-06-21 23:19:17 CEST --- * The web site on google code states the latest officially released version is 1.0.0 (r5350). On pcsx2.net the same source code is available. Why are you using a different version (r5412)? We should try to follow upstream. Actually I (aka upstream) asked Giles to package the version r5672 (r5412 was trial). The reasons are easy. 99% of PCSX2 users are on Windows. PCSX2 work very well on windows so release are infrequent and need careful testing. Wherease linux is years behind, and it is still in WIP state. I won't make a linux release without a window release. My latest commits fix major bug with one graphic plugin and made it compatible with opensource drivers (require mesa 9). Those major improvements explain why it would be better to package r5672. Cheers Gregory -- 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=2455 --- Comment #48 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2013-06-23 19:52:30 CEST --- Sorry I have forgotten to address the issue of the reporting fsf errors to upstream. These have now been fixed: $ rpmlint pcsx2-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. I will report the patch file upstream anon. -- 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=2455 --- Comment #50 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2013-06-24 08:19:37 CEST --- yes, I set to non-executable, as well as editing the shebang with sed. Has anyone else had this problem with an xpm file? -- 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=2455 --- Comment #52 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2013-06-26 00:26:44 CEST --- Many thanks for that helpful review. Maybe everything is solved now but for some rpmlint errors on the URL....? I have read and reread the the packaging guide on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#Creating_packa... I can't really see what I'm doing wrong with the URL errors, so you'll have to be very explicit with the correction I need, if any. $rpmlint pcsx2-1.1.0-2.fc18.src.rpm pcsx2.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://pcsx2.googlecode.com/p/pcsx2/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found pcsx2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://pcsx2.googlecode.com/files/pcsx2-1.1.0-r5674-lnx-sources.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint pcsx2-1.1.0-2.fc18.i686.rpm pcsx2.i686: W: invalid-url URL: https://pcsx2.googlecode.com/p/pcsx2/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint pcsx2-debuginfo-1.1.0-2.fc18.i686.rpm pcsx2-debuginfo.i686: W: invalid-url URL: https://pcsx2.googlecode.com/p/pcsx2/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I have created a bug report with upstream to explain the patch: http://code.google.com/p/pcsx2/issues/detail?id=1410&sort=-id&col... SPEC file: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=44712 SRPM: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=44711 -- 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=2455 --- Comment #54 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2013-06-26 20:41:47 CEST --- Okay that should be fixed. rpmlint doesn't like the Source http, but the link works fine when I try it. $ rpmlint pcsx2.spec pcsx2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: https://pcsx2.googlecode.com/files/pcsx2-1.1.0-r5674-lnx-sources.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint pcsx2-1.1.0-3.fc18.src.rpm pcsx2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://pcsx2.googlecode.com/files/pcsx2-1.1.0-r5674-lnx-sources.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint pcsx2-debuginfo-1.1.0-3.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. SRPM: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=44717 SPEC: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=44718 As far as the bug report about patch to upstream goes, could you please confirm that this is correct that the -m32 CFLAG needs to be unset, as they respond "Without this flag it won't build anymore on 64 bits machine." What is the issue exactly for Fedora? and perhaps explain why this is so? I can then add this to upstream bug report. -- 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=2455 --- Comment #56 from gregory.hainaut(a)gmail.com 2013-06-27 18:36:33 CEST --- PCSX2 is not an ordinary sofware. Most of the code executed are self-generated by PCSX2 itself (aka dynamic recompiler/virtual machine). That mean 1/ gcc flags have no much impact on speed 2/ some gcc flags (used to) crash PCSX2 It would need a careful test to check which flags can be enabled/disabled. Too much work for myself, but you're welcome ;). Note: strict aliasing is surely still broken. By the way, I got fvisibility on gcc4.7.3 doc. -- 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=2455 --- Comment #58 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2013-06-30 15:46:38 CEST --- Sorry thought I'd removed the trailing backslash. I'm not sure that I found all the cflags you and gregory have discussed, but I've stripped those that are redundant due to -O2 where I found them. rpmlint is as before: $ rpmlint pcsx2-debuginfo-1.1.0-4.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint pcsx2-1.1.0-4.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint pcsx2-1.1.0-4.fc18.src.rpm pcsx2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://pcsx2.googlecode.com/files/pcsx2-1.1.0-r5674-lnx-sources.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint pcsx2.spec pcsx2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: https://pcsx2.googlecode.com/files/pcsx2-1.1.0-r5674-lnx-sources.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. SPEC: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=44786 SRPM: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=44785 -- 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=2455 --- Comment #60 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2013-07-27 20:38:09 CEST --- I've made the additional changes and applied to CVSextras today (I apologise for how slow this has been) The up to date src package is at: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=45124 and the SPEC is here: http://forums.pcsx2.net/attachment.php?aid=45125 -- 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=2455 --- Comment #62 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2013-08-31 11:09:21 CEST --- Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: PCSX2 Short Description: An open source Playstation 2 emulator. Owners: pcsx2.net Branches:F-18 F-19 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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2455 --- Comment #63 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-09-01 12:51:36 CEST --- Please verify the case of your package (pcsx2) and the owner is the owner of the package (you aka gbirchley). CVS imported, please import in CVS, but wait for a status about the infra situation. Thx -- 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=2455 --- Comment #64 from Giles Birchley <gbirchley(a)blueyonder.co.uk&gt; 2013-09-02 05:14:18 CEST --- That's fine, name in lowercase and owner gbirchley if that works. CVS wasn't allowing me to checkout common yet, so I assume it will if I'm patient. Will pursue this on the mailing list if problem persists. -- 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=2455 fast.rizwaan(a)gmail.com <fast.rizwaan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fast.rizwaan(a)gmail.com --- Comment #66 from fast.rizwaan(a)gmail.com <fast.rizwaan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-12-18 01:43:59 CET --- Please enable SDL plugin, it is needed for pulseaudio and screenrecording. just delete this " -DFORCE_INTERNAL_SDL=FALSE \" from the spec file in the cmake area in %build section, and we have good PS2 emulator: here's 5671 version: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3emu8a5q8ncs2if/C9SnzOd2jb Videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I71xhjAc-go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eRl3lGUpvw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE-UcQn3nqw my other RPMS: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2qah4egxgf8ankv/Dk9GCe_ZM4 -- 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.