Bug 490210
| Summary: | Review Request: moc - A ncurses-based audio player | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Julian Aloofi <julian.fedora> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, jgranado, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-09-02 11:28:34 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 496433 | ||
|
Description
Julian Aloofi
2009-03-13 20:20:37 UTC
Doesn't this clash with QT's meta object compiler (moc)? I need a sponsor for this, because this is my first package. (In reply to comment #1) > Doesn't this clash with QT's meta object compiler (moc)? Wow, you were fast :) Upstream renamed the executable to mocp. Oh, now I see my mistake^^ Crap :) Well, I'll create a package like moc-player or sth. Thanks for the hint! OK, moc doesn't have his own package. Sorry for the confusion. There are no conflicts with moc. I need a sponsor, by the way ;) I can't open the request again. Should I just open another review request or ask someone to open it again? OK, I'll just open another review request. Sorry for this mess. Should be reopened now. *** Bug 490216 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 490217 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 490215 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Ah, thank you. And good night ;) rpmlint on the binary file now reported some errors. I'll upload fixed versions of the SRPM and .spec file tomorrow. I can't do anything today. The links wont change. I wont be able to solve the problems I have with the package in the near future. I will go for something simple first. Sorry for this mess... I'd like to explore the possibility of moc in fedora. I like it quite a lot :). My proposal srpm is in http://jgranado.fedorapeople.org/packages/moc/moc-2.5.0-1.fc10.src.rpm. I need to address a little issue with the initial configuration, after which I will post a new srpm and spec file. In the mean time, I have a question regarding the deps: What happens if a fedora package has a dependency on a rpmfusion package. I think some moc plugins are in rpmfusion. Does this mean that moc belongs in rpmfusion? If moc is in rpmfusion, will it have a place in bugzilla? I fiddled with it some more and I got a working install. SRPM: http://jgranado.fedorapeople.org/packages/moc/moc-2.5.0-1.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://jgranado.fedorapeople.org/packages/moc/moc.spec I'll revew the fedora review work flow to see what else needs to be done. Did some changes here and there. The srpm in comment 13 is no longer valid. SRPM: http://jgranado.fedorapeople.org/packages/moc/moc-2.5.0-1.20090602svn2151.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://jgranado.fedorapeople.org/packages/moc/moc.spec > What happens if a fedora package has a dependency on a rpmfusion package.
It must not create such a dependency. It would be a packaging mistake if it did. During review it won't be accepted into the Fedora package collection.
Btw, the spec file is pretty bad - sloppy - with regard to packaging guidelines that are in use for several years.
So what's the status of this review? The SRPM at the above URL is corrupted, but that's of little consequence because the package obviously isn't acceptable as-is. It can't even be built in Fedora due to missing build dependencies. Unless there are plans to change that, this ticket should be closed. RPMFusion would be a better place for this package. (Assuming that someone hasn't already submitted it there; someone was talking about doing so on #fedora-devel today.) agreed. moc definitely belongs in rpmfusion due to deps. I'm closing this for now. |