https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2474 Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-09-11 06:48:13 CEST --- First of all, I'm not a RPMFusion contributor, but I'm a Fedora packager (FAS account is 'bochecha' if you want to verify my credentials). Nicolas Chauvet told me I could help with the reviews here anyway, so here it comes. I'm not aware of any RPMFusion-specific guidelines, but the wiki suggests that they are identical to the Fedora ones, so I'm reviewing this package as if it were proposed for inclusion in Fedora. == Summary of issues == The package should own %{_datadir}/gtk-doc, or require the gtk-doc package. Similar packages will usually do the former in Fedora, to avoid introducing a big dependency chain. == Full Review == [x] package passes [-] not applicable [!] package fails [x] rpmlint output is clean gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-devel-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US GStreamer -> G Streamer, Streamer, Steamer gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-devel-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gstreamer -> streamer, g streamer, steamer 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. => These can all be ignored [x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license [x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file must be included in %doc [x] The spec file must be written in American English [x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible [x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL a0bce6db602513b65e86792e264b04d9fcc02949 gst-plugins-ugly-0.11.93.tar.xz [x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun [x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [!] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings [x] Permissions on files must be set properly [x] Each package must consistently use macros [x] The package must contain code, or permissable content [x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage [x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application [-] Header files must be in a -devel package [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package [-] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package [x] Subpackages requiring the base package [x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built [-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 [-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it [-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane [x] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg [-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself [-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts As I said, I'm not a RPMFusion contributor, so I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to formally approve packages, but if I were, I'd approve it, as the only issue is minor and I believe it can be fixed after importing into the VCS. -- 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=2474 --- Comment #3 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-16 09:29:04 CEST --- Thanks for the review! Here is a new version with the gtk-doc dir ownership fixed: Spec: http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/gstreamer1-plugins-ugly.spec SRPM: http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/gstreamer1-plugins-ugly-0.11.93-2.fc19.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. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2474 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |33 --- Comment #5 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-19 14:50:30 CEST --- You're doing fine with the blocker bugs, and once more thanks for the review! Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: gstreamer1-plugins-ugly Short Description: GStreamer 1.0 streaming media framework "ugly" plug-ins Owners: jwrdegoede Branches: F-18 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: free -- 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=2474 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-09-23 17:46:20 CEST --- Imported and build, closing. -- 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.