[Bug 2140] bombono-dvd - DVD authoring program with nice and clean GUI

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2140

--- Comment #46 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt at hotmail.com> 2012-03-31 17:57:03 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #40)
> (In reply to comment #38)
> 
> > Alright! Lets get this review going:
> 
> Alright! I reply now to what I think might need a discussion, back later with
> new links (short of time). I have excluded remarks which don't need discussion.
> 
> > [-] package meets the packaging guidelines
> > =The group category should be removed, as it is no longer required.
> 
> My understanding is that although Fedora ignores it, it's still wise to include

I have in the past been advised to remove it, though it really doesn't matter,
hence why I said at your discretion. If you think it belongs, then it is by no
means a problem.

> 
> >> -%{?rel_tag} is not necessary, please remove it
> >%{?rel_tag} should not be in the version, please remove it and move it to
> release
> Sometimes, I try new territorites: my understanding is that including the
> release tag is possible and even desirable since it's¸more robust. My
> reasoning, based on the same link:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages
> +This is a post-release
> +Version tags are either properly ordered or not.
> +The git tags like 20120329git1234567 are properly ordered thanks to the date
> prefix
> +In this case the link explicitly says that the git tag might go into the
> version (but without examples).
> +Or?!

Though that is true it is a post release, it is a snapshot none the less. The
post release refers to when upstream re-releases the code under the same
version number or with letter at the end. In this situation, adding letters
would be acceptable.

If I am not mistaken this issue has more to do with yum/rpm than convention. I
believe yum understands the difference between version 1.0-1 and 1.0a-1 and
1.0b-1, but does not understand the difference when too many letters are
introduced. I'm hesitant on letting this get accepted in case there could be an
issue later on.
As a rule of thumb, avoid anymore than a few letters in the version number and
always consider a pull from a vcs (such as git, svn, cvs, hg), that does not
have a explicit version tag, a snapshot package.

(In reply to comment #41)
> Yup, there was a BR: missing (adobe-source-libraries-devel). I have added it
> in-place, same links.  With this, it should build also for you :), note however
> comment #36 about adobe-source-libraries release 8 requirement.
> 
> Holding other updates until we have discussed open issues.

Yeah I thought as much, but I have no idea how this works so I didn't want to
take a stab in the dark haha. I'll let you know if I have any more issues with
building.

It happens(In reply to comment #45)
> Hm...thanks for input!
> 
> Yes, they give the same dates, but still the wrong ones (at a glance, all files
> have the date of last commit). I could certainly use these tarballs instead,
> but given that they neither work as Source: url nor have the correct
> modification dates I don't really see the point doing so. But this must be up
> to the reviewer.

In the case of downloads that aren't so pretty, just put the name of the file
in the source and provide a comment above it to explain how to get that file.
You can use whatever means necessary, but the only requirement is to be able to
reproduce it so:
A) The check sum matches that of the SRPM source file
B) It is clear enough that anyone, if necessary, can grab the same source using
the guide you provide in the comments.

Just at a quick glance of the link, if all that needs to be done is a rename of
the source file, that is perfectly fine. Just if you do so remember to put the
exact commands that you used to do it, for example:

##Commands to retrieve the source:
#wget http://gitorious.org/bombono-dvd/bombono-dvd/archive-tarball/22782514
#mv ./22782514 ./bombono-dvd.tar.gz

or whatever is applicable.

-- 
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.