https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 Vasiliy Glazov <vascom2(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vascom2(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov <vascom2(a)gmail.com&gt; --- 1. You should change %setup -q to %autosetup 2. make %{?_smp_mflags} to %make_build 3. export DESTDIR=%{buildroot} make install to %make_install 4. Remove %defattr(-,root,root,-) 5. In %files section use %{_bindir}/* instead of one string for each file. -- 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=4393 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dominik(a)greysector.net --- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net&gt; --- (In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #1) [...] Sorry, but I don't agree with using wildcards unless there are many files there. You won't notice any new files there easily unless you run rpmdiff on the final package or check manually. You don't have to save every single byte of the spec file. It's better to be a little verbose and a lot more legible. -- 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=4393 --- Comment #5 from Vasiliy Glazov <vascom2(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Next suggestions: 1. %global zmuid $(id -un) %global zmgid $(id -gn) Not used and can be removed. 2. If COPYING - is a license text it must be not in %doc, but %license COPYING -- 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=4393 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- (In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #4) I took a harder look at where %make_build might get defined on CentOS6. It does not ship with the stock rpm package like newer redhat distros. Instead, the macro definition is part of the epel-rpm-macros package. There we go. Mystery solved. (In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #5) Good catch. These changes have been applied. (In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #6) There are currently no Requires for vlc-devel in the spec file, but there are BuildRequires for vlc-devel and ffmpeg-devel. ZoneMinder searches for the header files of these libraries, and, it if finds them, it links against them. Currently, if it does not find them, it excludes the code that makes ffmpeg and/or vlc api calls. In the future, zoneminder's dependence on ffmpeg will likely become required instead of optional. As a side note, today, zoneminder can be built w/o ffmpeg support, but that makes zoneminder incompatible with nearly all modern ip cameras (i.e. virtually useless). This happens to be the driving force behind why Fedora understandably does not intend to host zoneminder any longer. (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #3) Since zoneminder has 19 executables, I tend to agree with this. I think showing each executable under %files adds value. -- 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=4393 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- (In reply to Damian Wrobel from comment #8) Thank you. Change has been committed upstream: https://github.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/commit/c594ad8be7943f2dac3b33111... ZoneMinder uses tmpfiles.d to create the runtime folder. It should have happened automatically during package installation. Perhaps the command to force tmpfiles.d to update immediately w/o reboot went missing from %post. I can look. https://github.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/blob/master/distros/redhat/syste... That forum thread was from an Ubuntu user so missing packages can be expected when building against master, since the deb packaging process does not have the auto-requires ability rpm does. Is your entire build output available for viewing anywhere? Can you try this on F24? I can manually add these to Requires if I have to, but I think there is something else going on here. These Requires should be picked up automatically during the build process and should look like this: https://gist.github.com/knnniggett/4811c111a692f585d6b40a4e5f29e564 However, I've noticed that only on F25, my builds both locally and on copr are not getting their requires & provides set properly. Don't know what the problem is yet, but it does not seem to be isolated to zoneminder. Perhaps there is some change in F25 that I am not yet aware of. -- 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=4393 Tomasz Torcz <zdzichu(a)irc.pl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zdzichu(a)irc.pl --- Comment #11 from Tomasz Torcz <zdzichu(a)irc.pl&gt; --- This looks like a job for RuntimeDirectory= in unit file. Can you talk with upstream to include it in unit file and drop the tmpfiles line? -- 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=4393 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- Excellent feedback. Seems we are getting some momentum. I am part of the upstream development team and will push the changes concerning runtimedirectory. I'm falling behind with everything stated here, but it seems Xavier solved all the issues I've been having on f25 with package dependencies. perl-generators was the missing element. I don't understand why Fedora's own packages don't have this buildrequires in their spec files, but I'll let that remain a mystery for now. I think I've got enough feedback to generate a new spec file and srpm. I'll get a new one out this week which incorporates everything stated thus far. @Damian - Thank you for the offer to submit X10 and AstroSunTime to Fedora. However, the spec files are, for lack of a better description, terrible. Last night I rewrote the spec files and have them hosted in my copr repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kni/zoneminder_deps/ However, as you noticed, they too are missing perl-generators, and I need to rebuild them. I should be able to get these updated today. I'll see if I can get these submitted to Fedora. I've got a sponsor, and since these are relatively simple, I thought it would make a good first time experience. -- 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=4393 --- Comment #15 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; --- Can you please provide links to the review requests for the missing perl modules ? perl-Astro-Suntime at least, others if any. Error: nothing provides perl(Astro::SunTime) needed by zoneminder-1.30.1-2.fc25.x86_64 -- 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=4393 --- Comment #17 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- You bet. These are my first two Fedora package requests: perl-X10: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409869 perl-Astro-SunTime: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409866 I was sponsored as a Fedora packager two days ago and am still in a learning curve. As one can see from these reports I've got some work to do, which I will resolve soon. My goal is to go through the experience of these two review processes before proceeding with any additional new package requests. brain = full. However, if anyone is interested, the next step will be to get perl-SOAP-WSDL and its dependencies perl-Class-Std-Fast and perl-IO-Socket-Multicast submitted. SRPMS are here: https://zmrepo.zoneminder.com/f/25/SRPMS/perl-SOAP-WSDL-3.003-3.fc25.src.rpm https://zmrepo.zoneminder.com/f/25/SRPMS/perl-IO-Socket-Multicast-1.12-1.... https://zmrepo.zoneminder.com/f/25/SRPMS/perl-Class-Std-Fast-0.0.8-3.fc25... Unfortunately, the situation is more complicated with EPEL 6 & 7. There are several more packages these distros require, which are not yet in all the right repos. I've started the process with some of the these by contacting the respective package maintainers. Feedback has been well received, and I even wound up becoming the new owner of perl-sys-mmap. I can provide a specific list of packages needed for EPEL 6 & 7, or we can just focus on ZoneMinder on Fedora for now. Let me know how you wish to proceed. With all that said, if anyone wants to install zoneminder today, then you can get any missing dependencies from zmrepo.zoneminder.com. I get it, if this all sounds like I've got the cart before the horse, and I understand completely that we really can't host zoneminder in rpmfusion until all the dependency issues are ironed out. -- 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=4393 --- Comment #19 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org&gt; --- A couple more comments on the spec... - Which supported distro/releases don't have %make_build ? Thus, is this really needed : """ # In some cases older distros do not have this macro defined %{!?make_build: %global make_build %{__make} %{?_smp_mflags} } """ - Would it be possible to have one sub-package for httpd and another for nginx ? - I believe the with_php_mysqlnd and with_php_mysql can be replaced by a simple "Requires: php-mysqli" which is a virtual provides for the proper package depending on the distro/release. - Isn't "%global _hardened_build 1" the default anyway ? - Source: should be a full URL. I realize that 1.30.1 was not released nor even tagged, I assume that's the reason, but this needs to be fixed. You might also want to use the more common Source0 rather than Source. - Multiple (Build)Requires: on one line are not very legible. - The added Requires: are most probably already auto-detected at build time. Only add the ones that are not autodetected, if any. - Unless I'm missing something """ %dir %{_libexecdir}/zoneminder %{_libexecdir}/zoneminder/cgi-bin %dir %{_datadir}/zoneminder %{_datadir}/zoneminder/db %{_datadir}/zoneminder/www """ can be written as """ %{_libexecdir}/zoneminder/ %{_datadir}/zoneminder/ """ The directories and files below will be owned too. Also notice the ending /, this is often used to make it more obvious this is a directory. - Same for """ %dir %attr(755,%{zmuid_final},%{zmgid_final}) %{_sharedstatedir}/zoneminder %dir %attr(755,%{zmuid_final},%{zmgid_final}) %{_sharedstatedir}/zoneminder/events %dir %attr(755,%{zmuid_final},%{zmgid_final}) %{_sharedstatedir}/zoneminder/images %dir %attr(755,%{zmuid_final},%{zmgid_final}) %{_sharedstatedir}/zoneminder/sock %dir %attr(755,%{zmuid_final},%{zmgid_final}) %{_sharedstatedir}/zoneminder/swap %dir %attr(755,%{zmuid_final},%{zmgid_final}) %{_sharedstatedir}/zoneminder/temp """ - Use macros in the paths for %dir %attr(755,%{zmuid_final},%{zmgid_final}) /var/log/zoneminder %dir %attr(755,%{zmuid_final},%{zmgid_final}) /var/spool/zoneminder-upload %dir %attr(755,%{zmuid_final},%{zmgid_final}) %ghost /var/run/zoneminder - No need to use %attr(644,root,root) or %attr(755,root,root), this is the default (unless the install script don't do the right thing). Short on time now, maybe more comments later... -- 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=4393 --- Comment #21 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- I've made further progress on this. (In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #19) A stock CentOS 6 does not have this macro defined in the rpm macro file. Instead, one must install the "epel-rpm-macros" package which defines %make_build. This won't affect the rpmfusion build system, and there is only a small chance an end user might run into if/when building locally. i.e. me. In any case, I've gone ahead and removed the line in question from the spec file as I don't think it is worth adding epel-rpm-macros as a centos6-only buildrequires. There does not appear to be php-mysqli package in fedora or rhel. dnf/yum install/whatprovides returns no package found. This became the default beginning with F23, but it is not the default in EL7. I've gone ahead and removed it from the specfile. I'm not sure this had any effect on EL7 anyway since the macro definition is commented out in the rpm macro file on EL7. Completed. Completed. After building zoneminder with the current list of Requires and then again without any of them, I did a comparison. I was able to remove a few unnecessary Requires. The Requires still showing in the specfile are not auto-detected and definitely are needed for zoneminder to function correctly. Some packages are easy to explain why rpm could not autodetect them while others, like the perl modules, I can't explain at all why rpm did not pick them up. We can go through them one by one, if you really want to. Completed. Completed. I still need to verify this. In the past there have been issues with permissions on certain files not being set correctly, which is why they are being forced in the specfile. We have since switched to building with cmake, rather than make, and I have not verified what still needs to be forced and what does not. location of latest specfile: https://github.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/blob/master/distros/redhat/zonem... same thing, just raw text: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/master/distros/re... -- 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=4393 --- Comment #23 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Is there any spec file update for this review ? Anyone can step in as a reviewer ? -- 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=4393 --- Comment #25 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- Greetings Xavier, Thank you for the prodding me. Following up here has been in the back of mind for a couple weeks now. With the help of Damian, all of ZoneMinder's dependencies are now in the Fedora & EPEL repos. This has been a great learning experience. Just to be sure we are set, I did a mock build against el6, el7, f24, and f25 this morning, using the appropriate rpmfusion mock config, and they all built successfully. This is the spec file to use to build our latest 1.30.2 release: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/1.30.2/distros/re... However, this is not the most recent. I've already made changes, which will appear in the upcoming 1.30.3 release "soon". You can see the progress of that specfile in our master branch here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/master/distros/re... In the grand scheme of things, I'm trying to manage a single zoneminder spec file for three related, but different, purposes: - rpmfusion - an upstream build system for nightly builds - experimental nginx support This is the underlying reason why one might see content in the spec file that, today, might not apply to rpmfusion. During the process, I have indeed become part of the Fedora packaging group, so if I understand correctly that means I don't need an rpmfusion sponsor, but don't I still need someone to add my FAS account to the rpmfusion packaging group? My fas account name is Kni. In any case, feel free to continue the review process when your time allows. Due to the complicated nature of the zoneminder specfile, I'm sure there might be additional questions or concerns. -- 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=4393 --- Comment #27 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- Thank you Antonio for reviewing this. The latest release, 1.30.4, srpm & specfile are here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/1.30.4/distros/re... https://zmrepo.zoneminder.com/f/25/SRPMS/zoneminder-1.30.4-1.fc25.src.rpm However, the rpm specfile, as it exists today, has already been changed. The latest specfile can be found in one of our development snapshots: https://zmrepo.zoneminder.com/f/testing/25/SRPMS/zoneminder-1.31.0-1.131.... https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ZoneMinder/ZoneMinder/4ba9205ba94062f65... Let me know if you need anything else. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 --- Comment #29 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- Right, you guys are building against F27 now, which I have not tested yet. This does build against f24, f25, el6, & el7, but I image you will want this to build against rawhide. I need to spend some time to figure out how to resolve this build failure: make[2]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4' In file included from /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.cpp:20:0: /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.h: In member function 'virtual int CommsBase::readV(const iovec*, int)': /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.h:98:20: error: '::readv' has not been declared int nBytes = ::readv( mRd, iov, iovcnt ); ^~~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.h:98:20: note: suggested alternative: 'read' int nBytes = ::readv( mRd, iov, iovcnt ); ^~~~~ read /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.h: In member function 'virtual int CommsBase::writeV(const iovec*, int)': /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.h:105:24: error: '::writev' has not been declared ssize_t nBytes = ::writev( mWd, iov, iovcnt ); ^~~~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.h:105:24: note: suggested alternative: 'write' ssize_t nBytes = ::writev( mWd, iov, iovcnt ); ^~~~~~ write /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.cpp: In member function 'virtual int CommsBase::readV(int, ...)': /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.cpp:59:18: error: '::readv' has not been declared int nBytes = ::readv( mRd, iov, iovcnt ); ^~~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.cpp:59:18: note: suggested alternative: 'read' int nBytes = ::readv( mRd, iov, iovcnt ); ^~~~~ read /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.cpp: In member function 'virtual int CommsBase::writeV(int, ...)': /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.cpp:79:22: error: '::writev' has not been declared ssize_t nBytes = ::writev( mWd, iov, iovcnt ); ^~~~~~ /builddir/build/BUILD/ZoneMinder-1.30.4/src/zm_comms.cpp:79:22: note: suggested alternative: 'write' ssize_t nBytes = ::writev( mWd, iov, iovcnt ); ^~~~~~ write make[2]: *** [src/CMakeFiles/zm.dir/build.make:138: src/CMakeFiles/zm.dir/zm_comms.cpp.o] Error 1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 --- Comment #31 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- Thanks for the feedback. It turns out I needed to make some additional changes as well. I can mock build the following on f27. srpm: https://zmrepo.zoneminder.com/f/testing/27/SRPMS/zoneminder-1.30.4-2.fc27... specfile: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/knnniggett/8f148fc1dd5b9f8e4ae604d0de6... patch0: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/knnniggett/8f148fc1dd5b9f8e4ae604d0de6... patch1: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/knnniggett/8f148fc1dd5b9f8e4ae604d0de6... Patches are based on merged upstream changes from the current master branch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 --- Comment #33 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- Understood. Thanks for the heads up. perl-Net-SFTP-Foreign is experiencing dependency issues in rawhide due to some per-math package not building on latest perl. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 --- Comment #35 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #34) The zm.conf file contains sensitive information, so it is by design this config file can only be read by root and the web account user. However, I would not expect this to cause rpmlint to not finish. I can't duplicate this on my end, and I'm running rpmlint as a normal user. While rpmlint does product a lot of output, which we can certainly talk about, it fully completes for me. This was on F25. I can upgrade to F26 and try again. I'm not sure what else to try. The custom selinux module is only built for el6, and I have recently decided that I no longer intend to build zoneminder for el6 in rpmfusion. There are several reasons why I made this decision, but for the sake of staying on topic I won't list them here. el7 & fedora distros do not contain this custom module nor the source files the module is built from. For the near future, I intend to continue to maintain zoneminder on el6 in my own repo, zmrepo. Consequently, I'd like to keep this bit of code in the spec file for now. I hope this is acceptable. I can add additional comments to the specfile to state this intention if that would be an acceptable compromise. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 --- Comment #37 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Andrew Bauer from comment #36) Unusually long time confirmed; probably, 'fedora-review' fails for this reason. There are some errors about we need talking: - 'htaccess-file' $ rpmlint -I htaccess-file htaccess-file: You have individual apache configuration .htaccess file(s) in your package. Replace them by a central configuration file in /etc/, according to the web application packaging policy for your distribution. But i see other packages with these kind of file under private /usr/share - wrong-script-interpreter It should not be important, but the form "#! /usr/bin/env INTERPRETER" is not tolerate by 'rpmlint'. - non-executable-script (.php files) Are their permissions correct? - hidden-file-or-dir Does 'zoneminder' need hidden files? - W: pem-certificate See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainer... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 --- Comment #39 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Andrew Bauer from comment #38) Yes. See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Certificates No. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 --- Comment #41 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Andrew Bauer from comment #40) SRPM?? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #43 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package approved. Rawhide scratch build: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146830 Epel7 scratch build: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146956 Review: ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: 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 is included in %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). $ mock --no-clean -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free --shell 'rpmlint zoneminder' INFO: mock.py version 1.4.2 starting (python version = 3.6.1)... zoneminder.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libjpeg-turbo zoneminder.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/zm/zm.conf 640 zoneminder.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/zoneminder/www/api/app/Plugin/Crud/.semver zoneminder.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/zoneminder/www/api/lib/Cake/Config/cacert.pem ../../../../../../../../etc/pki/tls/certs/ca-bundle.crt zoneminder.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/zoneminder/www/cambozola.jar ../../java/cambozola.jar zoneminder.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/zoneminder zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zma zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmaudit.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmc zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmcamtool.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmcontrol.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmdc.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmf zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmfilter.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmonvif-probe.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmpkg.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmsystemctl.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmtelemetry.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmtrack.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmtrigger.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmu zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmupdate.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmvideo.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmwatch.pl zoneminder.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zmx10.pl 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 22 warnings. $ rpmlint zoneminder-debuginfo-1.30.4-3.fc27.x86_64.rpm zoneminder-1.30.4-3.fc27.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3 [Bug 3] Tracker: Packages under review. https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4 [Bug 4] Tracker: Accepted packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 --- Comment #45 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Ignore this section, it's a legacy from another review. Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [!]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep << -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #47 from Antonio Trande <anto.trande(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #46) Okay. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 --- Comment #49 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- Pardon my newness to rpmfusion. After seeing the note stating bohdi is not running yet, I did an "rfpkg update" from the command line, similar to what I would do to push a new package into testing with Fedora. Since that process did not accept my login credentials, I went back to the rpmfusion contributer documentation. If I understand correctly, it seems I should post my successful builds here in the bug report, and presumably someone else will add them to rpmfusion testing. So heads up, here is the build for el7: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148328 And here is the build for f25: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148357 Building ZoneMinder on rawhide & f26, however, is failing due to an unresolved dep with live555. Which came from the following log: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/kojifiles/work/tasks/8351/148351/mock_output.log Everything looks in order, if I manually browse the rpmfusion repo so I'm not sure why that dep is failing. I'm going to just wait a couple days and try again. Maybe it will clear up on its own. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #51 from Andrew Bauer <zonexpertconsulting(a)outlook.com&gt; --- Thanks for the update. f26 now builds: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148433 and so does rawhide: http://koji.rpmfusion.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148444 We are all good now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.