Bug 222009

Summary: Review Request: fswebcam - Small webcam app
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Philip Heron <phil>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: manuel wolfshant <wolfy>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: jpmahowald, mail, wolfy
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-03-28 13:07:15 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Philip Heron 2007-01-09 11:03:03 EST
Spec URL: http://www.firestorm.cx/files/fswebcam.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.firestorm.cx/fswebcam/files/fswebcam-20070108-1.src.rpm
Description: A simple and tiny webcam application for capturing images from any V4L1/V4L2 compatable device. Includes basic image manipulation.

This is my first package for Extras so needs sponsored. I'm also the upstream maintainer of this application.
Comment 1 manuel wolfshant 2007-01-09 15:22:22 EST
MUST items
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( GPL v2) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source is the latest version, matches upstream, sha1sum
69df690a91dd5902b5fe3d6b5c6a140fe242f002  fswebcam-20070108.tar.gz
- package builds in mock for devel/x86_64
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no scriptlets, static, headers or .pc files
- Minor picknick: changelog misses the most current modifications, which
triggers a warning  from rpmlint when run against the binary package:
 fswebcam incoherent-version-in-changelog 20061210-1 20070108-1
There are no other complains from rpmlint, either on source or binary

SHOULD:
- builds in mock without problems
- There is no obvious segfault at runtime, but I have no camera to fully test.


Please fix the changelog and since your package is a GUI, consider adding a
.desktop file (or explain why this would not be needed)
Comment 2 Philip Heron 2007-01-09 17:12:39 EST
Thanks for looking,

- I've updated the changelog to reflect the latest version
- There is no GUI for this app so a .desktop file isn't needed
Comment 3 manuel wolfshant 2007-01-09 17:27:59 EST
Yes, you are right, it's not a GUI. Sorry for the confusion. 
From my point of view, the package could be approved. However,since you need a
sponsor,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-bb3314e7b80fd98f037edd46f6d1efafbb611752
should be followed and therefore you must convince a sponsor to review the
package, too.

Returing the package to FE-NEW status.
Comment 4 John Mahowald 2007-09-27 01:23:39 EDT
Skip the Requires: gd > 2, rpm automatically does the dep for libgd.

GPL is no longer a valid license, you have to specify the version, looks like v2.

Looking very good otherwise, builds fine on devel. 
Comment 5 Philip Heron 2007-10-01 17:43:27 EDT
(In reply to comment #4)

Hi John,

I've changed the License field to "GPLv2". Is there a preferred format? For
example, GPL2 or GPLv2.

> Skip the Requires: gd > 2, rpm automatically does the dep for libgd.

Done and confirmed.

Updated files are now here:
Spec URL: http://www.firestorm.cx/files/fswebcam.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.firestorm.cx/files/fswebcam-20070108-2.src.rpm
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2008-01-19 19:15:50 EST
This package is marked as being under review, but is not assigned to anyone. 
John set the fedora-review flag but wolfy did an initial review, so I'll just CC
them both and see if either is willing to take this.
Comment 7 manuel wolfshant 2008-01-19 19:37:52 EST
Philip, would you please follow
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored ? I am
allowed to sponsor you now, but first I need to see some more input from you.
Comment 8 Philip Heron 2008-01-20 17:33:40 EST
Will do this as soon as possible.
Comment 9 Philip Heron 2008-03-28 13:07:15 EDT
I've left this request idle for far too long so I'd like to withdraw it for now,
it's not fair leaving it lingering. If anyone else would like to pick it before
I get my free time back I'd be happy to see it included in Fedora.

Changing to WONTFIX
Comment 10 Fabian Affolter 2008-12-27 07:29:27 EST

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 478294 ***