https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2383 Magnus Tuominen <magnus.tuominen(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |magnus.tuominen(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Magnus Tuominen <magnus.tuominen(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-20 19:28:34 CEST --- I'll take this. -- 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=2383 --- Comment #2 from Magnus Tuominen <magnus.tuominen(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-06-20 19:48:21 CEST --- This is the review: MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. pmlint -iv ffmpegthumbs.spec ffmpegthumbs.spec: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/unstable/4.8.90/src/ffmpegthumbs-4.8.90.tar.xz (timeout 10 seconds) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint -iv ../RPMS/x86_64/ffmpegthumbs-* ffmpegthumbs.x86_64: I: checking ffmpegthumbs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ffmpegthumbnailer -> thumbnail The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ffmpegthumbs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ffmpegthumbnailer -> thumbnail The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ffmpegthumbs.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.8.90-4 ['4.8.90-1.fc17', '4.8.90-1'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. ffmpegthumbs.x86_64: I: checking-url https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdemultimedia/ffmpegthumbs (timeout 10 seconds) ffmpegthumbs.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdemultimedia/ffmpegthumbs The read operation timed out The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. ffmpegthumbs-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking ffmpegthumbs-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdemultimedia/ffmpegthumbs (timeout 10 seconds) ffmpegthumbs-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdemultimedia/ffmpegthumbs The read operation timed out The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. ffmpegthumbs-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files. This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used. ^^^ what's this? 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. rpmlint -iv ../SRPMS/ffmpegthumbs-4.8.90-1.fc17.src.rpm ffmpegthumbs.src: I: checking ffmpegthumbs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ffmpegthumbnailer -> thumbnail The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ffmpegthumbs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ffmpegthumbnailer -> thumbnail The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ffmpegthumbs.src: I: checking-url https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdemultimedia/ffmpegthumbs (timeout 10 seconds) ffmpegthumbs.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://projects.kde.org/projects/kde/kdemultimedia/ffmpegthumbs The read operation timed out The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. ffmpegthumbs.src: I: checking-url http://download.kde.org/unstable/4.8.90/src/ffmpegthumbs-4.8.90.tar.xz (timeout 10 seconds) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. warnings can be ignored, not sure about the error. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. upstream de03f3ae56484664c1e10828aa16c004 src.rpm de03f3ae56484664c1e10828aa16c004 OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] OK MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. OK MUST: 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. OK MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK MUST: 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. OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). OK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: 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. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK MUST: 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do. SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. SHOULD: 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. SHOULD: 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. SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. References to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines Nothing really to complain about here, except the E: debuginfo-without-sources in the debuginfo 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=2383 --- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2012-06-24 17:27:37 CEST --- make that, Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: ffmpegthumbs Short Description: KDE ffmpegthumbnailer service Owners: rdieter,magnu5,kkofler Branches: f17 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=2383 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2383 --- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2012-08-29 14:04:18 CEST --- I see kwizart(a)gmail.com 2012-06-28 19:50:41 CEST Blocks 33 in the history, but I can't find any ffmpegthumbs module in cvs yet. ?? Re-adding blocker. -- 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=2383 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.