https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3102 --- Comment #1 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2014-01-06 12:27:43 CET --- Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-softhddevice.spec SRPM URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0-3.20... %changelog * Mon Jan 06 2014 Martin Gansser <martinkg(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; - 0.6.0-3.20131204gita74a8e1c - correct git snapshot address - correct wrong git date in %%changelog rpmlint vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0-3.20131204gita74a8e1.fc20.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0-3.20131204gita74a8e1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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=3102 --- Comment #3 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2014-01-08 17:56:48 CET --- Spec URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vdr-softhddevice.spec SRPM URL: http://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0-5.20... %changelog * Wed Jan 08 2014 Martin Gansser <martinkg(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; - 0.6.0-5.20131208git978fc59 - update for new git snapshot -- 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=3102 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leamas.alec(a)gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-01-09 19:03:44 CET --- The spec links return "Forbidden". Bad permissions? -- 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=3102 --- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-01-09 19:47:48 CET --- Just some random comments: - The macro usage is IMHO inconsistent. I would just remove %commitdate (used only once) and probably also %pname - it will not change so it's no point having a macro for it. OTOH, use the %commit macro in %Source0. - The installation part looks odd. Why are you not using 'make install DESTDIR=...', it seems that the Makefile has full support for this. Seems safer to me. - The %defattr is not needed. - There seem to be a fedora-specific configuration file(?) Does this require something like README.fedora? -- 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=3102 Charles Stewart <chuckination(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chuckination(a)gmail.com Blocks| |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=3102 --- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-01-10 08:49:17 CET --- No blocker, but please remove also gittag, using %short_commit in release instead. After all, 5.%{short_commit}%{?disttag} is a perfectly sane revision; %gittag just adds noise. The fedora config file is fine just the user finds it. But generally speaking, she will not do this since she will look in the docs for it. Hence a specific README.fedora is probably needed which just says that the configuration file is added. No blocker. Is the %description outdated? The website lists (many) more capabilitites. Or is it just that not everything is enabled in the Fedora build? If the list becomes too long I'd suggest removing the planned features - they are probably less interesting as package info. Please try to reorganize %prep so all charset conversions are lumped together and done in a (more) uniform way. As of now, you keep the date on one file - the other is plain wrong (see the rpmlint warning). I suggest for f in ChangeLog README.txt; do (...) The sed patching of Makefile in %prep seems to be a no-op. Can you just remove it? The configuration seems somewhat messy. The Makefile looks for a pkgconfig file, but vdr-devel does not provide this. OTOH vdr-devel does provide a vdr-config binary, but this is not used in the Makefile. Probably worth reporting upstream. If you maintain vdr-devel (?), you could just add a pkgconfig .pc file to it so things are more consistent. Or patch Makefile to use vdr-config. No blocker, it sort of "works" as-is. You need to add %{optflags} to the build (CFLAGS=%{optflags} should work, but must be checked.) Rpmlint: vdr-softhddevice.i686: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0/README.txt vdr-softhddevice.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.0-5.git978fc59.fc20 ['0.6.0-5.git978fc59.fc19', '0.6.0-5.git978fc59'] Fix these (omit the disttag in the changelog revision, otherwise it fails depending on buildhost). -- 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=3102 --- Comment #12 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2014-01-10 10:38:44 CET --- (In reply to comment #11) i meant make CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags} -- 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=3102 --- Comment #14 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2014-01-10 14:29:15 CET --- (In reply to comment #10) done "works" as-is. done done done Makefile checks this with /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/vdr.pc (vdr-devel package) done corrected done Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d6ap93hmsitv0if/vdr-softhddevice.spec SRPM URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1cj3galtebgj5e4/vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0-7.978fc5... %changelog * Thu Jan 09 2014 Martin Gansser <martinkg(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; - 0.6.0-7.978fc59 - removed gittag - updated description - put together README and changelog file conversion in %%prep section - removed sed patching of Makefile - changed changelog revision - changed build flags rpmlint vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0-7.978fc59.fc20.x86_64.rpm vdr-softhddevice.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample vdr-softhddevice.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deinterlacer -> interlace, interlard, intercede vdr-softhddevice.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US atmo -> atom, ammo, at mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. rpmlint vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0-7.978fc59.fc20.src.rpm vdr-softhddevice.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample vdr-softhddevice.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deinterlacer -> interlace, interlard, intercede vdr-softhddevice.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US atmo -> atom, ammo, at mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. -- 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=3102 --- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-01-10 17:44:57 CET --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [x]: 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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "AGPL". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mk/tmp/FedoraReview/vdr- softhddevice/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: The spec file handles locales properly. [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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 71680 bytes in 3 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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 ===== 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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0-7.978fc59.fc19.i686.rpm vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0-7.978fc59.fc19.src.rpm vdr-softhddevice.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample vdr-softhddevice.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deinterlacer -> interlace, interlard, intercede vdr-softhddevice.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US atmo -> atom, ammo, at mo vdr-softhddevice.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample vdr-softhddevice.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deinterlacer -> interlace, interlard, intercede vdr-softhddevice.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US atmo -> atom, ammo, at mo 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint vdr-softhddevice vdr-softhddevice.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US resample -> re sample, re-sample, res ample vdr-softhddevice.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deinterlacer -> interlace, interlard, intercede vdr-softhddevice.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US atmo -> atom, ammo, at mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- vdr-softhddevice (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(vdr-softhddevice) libX11-xcb.so.1 libX11.so.6 libasound.so.2 libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9) libavcodec.so.54 libavcodec.so.54(LIBAVCODEC_54) libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 librt.so.1 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libswresample.so.0 libswresample.so.0(LIBSWRESAMPLE_0) libvdpau.so.1 libxcb-dpms.so.0 libxcb-icccm.so.4 libxcb-screensaver.so.0 libxcb.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) vdr(abi)(x86-32) Provides -------- vdr-softhddevice: config(vdr-softhddevice) libvdr-softhddevice.so.2.0.0 vdr-softhddevice vdr-softhddevice(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- http://projects.vdr-developer.org/git/vdr-plugin-softhddevice.git/snapsho... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2a8edc81ab82000e4d1060e78d42b0da0d99afa5adc9638d0469de1942167aea CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2a8edc81ab82000e4d1060e78d42b0da0d99afa5adc9638d0469de1942167aea Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (1921b30) last change: 2014-01-09 Command line :./try-fedora-review -rn vdr-softhddevice-0.6.0-7.978fc59.fc20.src.rpm -m fedora-19-i386-rpmfusion_free Buildroot used: fedora-19-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- 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=3102 MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW --- Comment #18 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2014-01-10 18:11:00 CET --- @Alec many thanks for your great review ! Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: vdr-softhddevice Short Description: A software and GPU emulated HD output device plugin for VDR Owners: martinkg Branches: devel, F-20, F21 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=3102 MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |leamas.alec(a)gmail.com |mfusion.org | -- 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=3102 MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #19 from MartinKG <mgansser(a)alice.de&gt; 2014-01-11 13:23:20 CET --- The import and build have been done correctly. http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=19436 http://buildsys.rpmfusion.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=19437 -- 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.