[Bug 3335] New: Review Request: libde265 - Open H.265 video codec implementation

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3335

             Bug #: 3335
           Summary: Review Request: libde265 - Open H.265 video codec
                    implementation
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: Package Reviews
           Version: Current
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: GNU/Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P5
         Component: Review Request
        AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review at rpmfusion.org
        ReportedBy: mail at joachim-bauch.de
                CC: rpmfusion-package-review at rpmfusion.org


Spec URL: http://www.joachim-bauch.de/static/fedora/libde265.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.joachim-bauch.de/static/fedora/libde265-0.8-1.fc20.src.rpm

Description:
libde265 is an open source implementation of the H.265 video codec.
It is written from scratch for simplicity and efficiency. Its simple
API makes it easy to integrate it into other software.

The package was rejected for Fedora
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129691) because "HEVC
implementations (of which h265 is one) have exactly the same legal problems as
previous codecs backed by the MPEG consortium.". See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129691 for further information.
Feedback from comment #2 of that bug has been incorporated.

This is my first RPM fusion package, I'm looking for somebody to review and
sponsor it.

rpmlint output for the RPMs:
-----
$ rpmlint -i ../SRPMS/libde265-0.8-1.fc20.src.rpm 
libde265.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
libde265.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code,
codes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

-> "codec" is just fine for this.

libde265.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/strukturag/libde265/releases/download/v0.8/libde265-0.8.tar.gz
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL.

-> This seems to be a bug in either rpmlint or on Github, I can download the
package just fine with wget or curl.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

-----

$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/libde265-0.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 
libde265.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
libde265.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex, code,
codes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

-> see above

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

-----

$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/libde265-debuginfo-0.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

-----

$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/libde265-devel-0.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 
libde265-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code,
codes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
libde265-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> codex,
code, codes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

-> see above

libde265-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.

-> The arch-specific "pkginfo" file must be installed to /usr/lib*, so that's
fine.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

-----

$ rpmlint -i ../RPMS/x86_64/libde265-examples-0.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 
libde265-examples.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex,
code, codes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
libde265-examples.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec ->
codex, code, codes
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

-> see above

libde265-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libde265-sherlock265
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
libde265-examples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary libde265-dec265
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

-> As these are just simple examples, I didn't bother writing man pages yet.
Both applications can print their usage information on the commandline.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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.