Bug 1462467 (hollywood)

Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20057150

As agreed in IRC, review swap with bug #1487420.
Please feel free to set status and review flag.

Raphael, this package depends on mplayer, which is not in Fedora. You may want to package this for a different RPM repository.

You run into wrong assumptions. hollywood is just a wrapper script for all the optional tools (dependencies of this bug), if a tool is not found then it's not used. We may want to use weak dependencies here instead, I can remove mplayer.

I'll close here. There's going to be no progress in near future.
Thanks for your time to look into this request. Please feel free to use for another request if you think hollywood can be of any usefulness in Fedora.

I'll continue with this request.

Reviewer, are you still interested, too?

I don't have the time to work on this until next month, so I'd recommend finding a new reviewer. Sorry.

(In reply to Stephen Gallagher from comment #7)
> I don't have the time to work on this until next month, so I'd recommend
> finding a new reviewer. Sorry.

No problem. I've to see if I find the time by myself, either and too. Thanks for the quick reply.

(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #6)
> I'll continue with this request.
> 
> Reviewer, are you still interested, too?

Update the SPEC to get rid of non-Fedora stuff?

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #9)

> Update the SPEC to get rid of non-Fedora stuff?

What do you mean with non-Fedora stuff? In case of mplayer, see comment #4 below.

Regarding the mplayer issue, the Packaging Guidelines say that all dependencies must be solvable using only the Fedora repositories.
>All package dependencies (build-time or runtime, regular, weak or otherwise) MUST ALWAYS be satisfiable within the official Fedora repositories.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies

This means that if mplayer is not packaged for Fedora, it cannot be used as a Requires:, Recommends: or even Suggests:. 

>Version:        1.12
The launchpad site says that 1.20 has been released - please update the spec.

Thanks for the hints. I'm going to fix the mentioned issues ASAP.

> This means that if mplayer is not packaged for Fedora, it cannot be used as a Requires:, Recommends: or even Suggests:. 

TBH it's still not clear to me that this common policy applies _strictly_ also for weak dependencies as here mplayer counts in and mplayer is reasonable packaged in the widely used and generally available 3rdparty repository called rpmfusion.

Sorry for the long delay to work on this request.

>it's still not clear to me that this common policy applies _strictly_ also for weak dependencies
The Weak Dependencies Policy is clear on this.

>As with regular dependencies, weak dependencies MUST be satisfiable within the official Fedora repositories.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/WeakDependencies/

Is the package usable at all, if no 3rd-party repository is enabled? So are then e.g. just minor features missing? If the answer is "no", the package should IMHO get part of a 3rd-pary repository. Aside of that, the latest version is 1.21 which might address the license workaround in the spec file?

Thanks for your interest.

(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #15)
> Is the package usable at all, if no 3rd-party repository is enabled? 

"We may want to use weak dependencies here instead, I can remove mplayer."

> So are then e.g. just minor features missing?

Yes. Weak dependency (for mplayer) may not work for cross-repos.

> Aside of that, the latest version is 1.21 which might address the license workaround in the spec file?

ASL 2.0, see https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~kirkland/hollywood/trunk/view/head:/debian/copyright#L8

Though I fail to remember why added CC0 as well. Propably suggest from licensecheck script.

Indeed, packaging version 1.12 seems to be very conservative. Going to take a closer look into more current version with obviously more 3rd-party support, besides fixes.
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~kirkland/hollywood/trunk/view/head:/debian/changelog

Honestly, if the package will require more and more dependencies from 3rd-party repositories with newer versions...does it really make sense for the Fedora repository?

Well, that would mean my first package for a 3rd party repo. But if it's still to skip mplayer only we should continue here.

Agreed. Maybe we can consider and omit most or all runtime dependencies as optionally weak. Those scriptlets in lib/ exit silently if no specific executable binary found. 

I'll prepare a new spec file.

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.